Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

From discussion footer

I noticed that in the restructuring of the votes, a large section of comments made by myself, Fan1967 among others have been removed. Would someone kindly add them back here. I believe it is influential to the discussion as it regards different opinions of verifiability, notable sources, etc. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they haven't been removed. They were moved to the AfD's talk page, where they belong, as was noted above. GassyGuy 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was confused. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else is confused like me, the comments are here. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's just another article covering this: Stolen Sidekick. I made it a redirect. --Jamoche 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-direct, it should be appropriate and keeps the issue simpler. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: the first being that this guy has posted an NYPD case number, I believe this might satisify your verifiblity requirement. And the second, just delete it already! It will get reposted, you'll delete, and repeat until it's gone. It's kind of sad that you guys find importance in Star Wars Light Saber Combat, but are horribly unmerciful to something that YOU deem un-important. How are 'Googly Eyes' important? Incidents like this are incredibly important to understanding the new social dynamic of our emerging technological society. These instances will be very useful in a socio or pysch grad student's thesis someday and this is where he or she could find the connections and accounts of an instance like this. These are things that don't always make into records like news media. Does that mean that this isn't important? Wikipedia should be more than just a mere collection of random, trivial, facts and fiction(Light Saber Combat?!). Wikipedia has the potential to be a driving force for acedemic research, and think this is a case where this holds true. Science and acedemia doesn't disregard something just because it doesn't appear useful at the time, why should you? Brady 00:02, 10 June, 2006 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.195.72 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISTM that the main concern isn't simple verifiability. I assume millions of minorly valuable items are stolen each year; probably billions, worldwide. I have no idea what percentage have police reports, but presumably quite a lot. Most actual, provably true, thefts are distinctly non-notable. LotLE×talk 00:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "how sad that you people..." seem to always be written by people who write articles about Internet memes. One person posted long rants about how all Wikipedians need to get a life, while defending an article on a misspelling of the word "away", for crying out loud. JIP | Talk 13:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It's kind of sad that you guys find importance in Star Wars Light Saber Combat, presumably you are referring to lightsabre combat and its associated deletion discussion. - Motor (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It will get reposted, you'll delete, and repeat until it's gone. - I believe this is where {{Deletedpage}} will come in handy. And seeing that {{afdanons}} has already been put up, as well as vote sorting already implemented, I'd be surprised if it doesn't get protected if it is deleted. Hbdragon88 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to the Lightsabre combat article. Really, how relevent to the world is that article? Aren't there plenty of Star Wars fan sites that cover that topic already? Yet, it was kept? But like I said previously, and none have rebuked, instances like this have the potential to add so much more to the breadth of human knowledge. Personally, I don't care about this page imparticular, I'm just argueing a point.---Brady, 15:47, 10 June, 2006, PST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.194.235 (talk • contribs)

Note: the mentioned article is currently under AfD; it has not been closed as either keep or delete. I actually voted delete over there; but AfD's are not a quid-pro-quo where if one article has a given result some other must have a given result by some sort of logical implication. LotLE×talk 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the majority of the votes is Delete but that being said, in the event of a deletion, I may keep a copy of the page under my userpage just in case this incident becomes as notable as the P-p-p-powerbook article in the future. As pointed out, the presence of a case number and mention on CNET are quite notable and verifiable in my opinion. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From threaded inline

- oops, the above was by me. I visited the diggs site and it locked up my browser, so I ended up force-quitting. Tychocat 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who cares what Tychocat complains about? This is a note-worthy example of what the Internet is doing to this country. People all around the US are reading about this and taking part. This is a significant event in the history of the Internet. Someone in New York wanted their phone back. The NYPD is too busy to help so the victim turned to the Internet. This may be shortlived, but someone thought it was momentous enough to make a permanent record of it. I agree. Leave it be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.18.197 (talk • contribs)

Comment ... and a few weeks now, some new story will sweep around and this will be forgotten. Forget the 100 year test. How about something that will survive the 100 day test? Fan1967 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and that one will be documented as well. History is not about the end result, but about all the steps to get there. This will be one of the steps in the history of Internet justice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenet411 (talk • contribs)

Comment I do not remotely believe that it is Wikipedia's task to record every passing fad on the internet. Fan1967 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a quote about Wikipedia content "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." Keyword being 'notable'. Just because you did not take part in the event does not make it not notable. This was a very interesting case study in the power of community and how fast an Internet storm can take off. Crashing five servers just trying to discuss the event is note-worthy enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenet411 (talk • contribs)

That's the second reference to five servers crashing. I might point out that a lot of forums are low-budget operations with old Pentium 1's. I might also ask, whose servers, verified where? Fan1967 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can verify that I was following this story all day as each server was brought up, accessed by millions of requests per second, and then crashed. And these are *NOT* servers made from Pentium 1 CPUs. The crashes were due to issues with PHP forums and MySQL databases and their performance under such heavy loads. Look, this is a note-worthy event due to it's rapid spread (12GB bandwidth to 132 GB bandwidth in one day for a simple, mostly text site. Thats a lot of traffic) as well as its reach. It should stay.--Thenet411 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, you and I seem to have different ideas on what is meant by "verified". Fan1967 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can verify at least one as it was crashed for most of the day and has only recently come back online: [Impulse100.net]. The fact is that before this article is marked for deletion based on the uninformed opinions of people who were not following the event, more people that DID follow the event should be allowed to post their thoughts.--Thenet411 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is someone being prevented from posting? First I've heard of it. Fan1967 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am new to this wiki and I have no idea how long a discussion like this lasts before action is taken to delete a reference. More people who actually witnessed this event and have something intelligent to say about it are on the way I hope.--Thenet411 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD runs at least five days. Can you provide independent reports from reliable sources about all these servers crashing? Fan1967 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no doubt that news organizations were following this throughout the day, all I can say is that many, many people witnessed the servers coming online (after a link to them was posted on the victim's site) and two went down within minutes and the current forum lasted for around an hour before it went down. After hardware changes and improved software, the current forum came back online. In the coming days, we may be able to find reliable news sources for the facts.--Thenet411 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would help. Let's face it, some unnamed "many people" do not constitute verification. Fan1967 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, duh Fan1967, I never said it constituted verification. As I said, just because you have no idea what happened doesn't mean it didn't. And with a little luck, more who did will be here to provide you with the 'names' you so desperately require.--Thenet411 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would believe that Slashdot is a peer-reviewed and reputable source? There are also other mentions on various journals, blogs and forums. A small list is obtainable at the original website. A google search would also provide other sources, albeit mostly of third party nature. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(squeezing the margin, moving back). Slashdot does not qualify as a Reliable Source. Nor do journals, blogs or forums. Please read the standards. Fan1967 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see how someone with no technical background would say that Slashdot is not a credible source. But the fact is that you are wrong. By the standards given in the Reliable Source definitions, Slashdot is as credible as they come.--Thenet411 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the section Reliability of online sources: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." Slashdot is a commercialised entity and its content system is frequently reviewed by its readers and editors. I don't think it falls into any of the abovementioned categories. It may not be as esteeemed as the New York Times but once upon a time, Wikipedia wasn't either. Now look where it stands. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For obvious reasons, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Fan1967 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sidestepping the issue? Wikipedia is arguably a decent enough source for academic quotation. As for Slashdot, academic references appear here and an example of a reliable and professional source here contributing to the community and having his story/work accessed before being approved for publishing (Neutrino Mass on Slashdot entry). -- ^Evanx(tag?) 03:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No way on God's green earth is Wikipedia fit for academic citation. Information is constantly added by anonymous users. Some is reviewed and corrected by others, but much is not. As for slashdot, your first link is a paper about web sites, and mentions slashdot as one of them. Your second link is a guy using slashdot as a mode to request feedback. Neither is a citation. Fan1967 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In several computer science courses at the University of Toronto, Wikipedia is accepted as an academic source. This is just one instance, there are probably more examples. The first link is proof that Slashdot are referenced in academic papers and it does mention about its credibility from user editorials. The second link shows that the audience of Slashdot are professionally and adequately able to perform those editorials and contribute, the guy in question being a PhD student. If you had cared to browse the journal section of Slashdot, you might find many informative articles of a reasonably high standard. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 04:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure I would, just as there are many excellent articles in Wikipedia. That is a long way from saying that everything at either site may be regarded as being expert, correct, and throughly reviewed. Fan1967 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I believe this page should not be deleted, if it is...i think it should be mentioned on some other related topic. the site has been up for 2 days and has already used over 132 gigs of bandwidth...not to mention, it has been mentioned on slashdot (/.) and has already led to more than 5 forum servers being closed down due to overuse...its a very important topic as of right now and thousands of people are entranced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.213.34 (talk • contribs)
- Firstly: Very important topic? Of interest, yes indisputably. Interest does not imply notability or importance. Hundreds of thousands of people buy magazines to read about Angelina Jolie's baby, but that doesn't mean that we should make a WP article about him/her. Paddles ^T_C 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly: as of right now implies passing interest, not enduring interest or significance. Paddles ^T_C 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premature AfD

Every point made to delete this article may be entirely valid, but they are also entirely premature. Keeping it while its significance can be assessed, and while it is a "current event" does not detriment Wikipedia in the least. Deleting a new article many new users would be interested in reading, does. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My the time this AfD concludes, the subject will have been forgotten, for the most part. (It's still a lousy title. If kept, it shoudl be renamed without redirect.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by forgotten you mean lose popularity, then I'd agree, but forgotten as in a trivial distraction... I highly doubt it. Memes such as this get traction for reasons that go beyond amusement; this isn't in the realm of a chain letter you smile about then delete. I disagree with renaming it (although SideKick 2 is free), and having no redirect is out of the question. People cut and paste their searches all the time. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong source

A mention on the New York Times. I hope readers keeping up to this will realise the article changes and updates to bring it up to standard. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there any particular reason why my comment on the main page was DELETED? Alyeska 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this one? If so, that was on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolensidekick, not this page. -- Vary | Talk 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second VFD in a week... I naturaly assumed the VFD linked to the mainpage was the same one. Never seen VFDs go this fast before. Alyeska 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a second one, really: the two articles and their AFD's were started a few hours apart, and Stolensidekick was speedily redirected to How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 to consolidate discussion. -- Vary | Talk 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Question...

This isn't to question whether or not WP should carry the article (I voted delete, just as a disclosure of bias), but out of general curiosity? Who cares? Not Wikipedia, but the media. SO WHAT? Some chick lost her Sidekick, and someone found it and used it. I'm sure this isn't the first time it's happened. So just because some twit posted the thief's info online, it's suddenly a headline-worthy story on /.? I mean, that's not why I said delete, but honestly...I just don't get it... -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Internet vigilantism. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad outcome

Well, this is a sad outcome. Most of the voters don't seem to have been aware that this story was featured in the NY Times, even though that was repeatedly mentioned. Apparently a lot of people just have some sort of reflexive bias against "Internet memes" and no amount of logic can penetrate that bias. We've kept many, many articles on subjects not notable enough to be featured in the NY Times. Everyking 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference mentioned in the discussion is Howard W. French (2006-06-03). "Online Throngs Impose a Stern Morality in China". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-06-19.. It is not only not about the Sidekick II incident, it does not even mention that incident. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) The only New York Times reference in the article,is not about this incident, either. It does not appear to be a news story. It is about "Edwin Andres Pena, the accused mastermind of an Internet phone hacking scheme" and the general issue of the "digital breadcrumbs" we all leave behind us. It does mention the Sidekick II incident, but only in passing, and does not assign it any great importance other than as one recent example. [1]. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still weighing whether to take this to DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me when you do. I have saved a backup copy of the article at User:Evanx/Backup. Please amend that copy when there are updates. I was the original editor and am sorely disappointed by the outcome. Since the primary reason for deletion was either non-notability or unverifiable sources, I had felt I addressed those issues fairly by the reports from reputable online sources. There is even a NYPD case number and I cannot understand why it is non-verifiable. As for non-notability, it passes the Google test easily and is mentioned on many journals, both academic and personal. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times full page article with picture at their page. Situation resolved. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 04:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well take it to deletion review badlydrawnjeff. When it was nominated I think it quite easily qualified as an event that fell below a reasonable threshold for inclusion, at least in my opinion (disclaimer: I don't consider the "Google test" or alexa rankings to be worth anything). The full page NYT article with pic at least gives it a good media referencethat is non-trivial in nature. IMO, this article should have never been created when it was because until the more recent media coverage it had very little verifiable, reliable source material to back it up... and It's still way to early to call it a meme.--Isotope23 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering the option but am quite appalled by the number of users who have voted Delete without actually reading the article itself to ascertain the quality, nor have they checked the references to affirm the validity, both points of non-notability and non-verifiability which I had addressed. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my delete vote had nothing at all to do with article quality or interest level in the story (I find the story fascinating and have been following/blogging it from the beginning), it simply had to do with the fact that, in my opinion, there simply was not enough verifiable media coverage at the time of the AfD to support an article. Since close of AfD and additional coverage, you may have a stronger case. I don't put much stock in WP:MEME because it is a proposed guideline and personally I don't like applying guidelines that have not met community consensus, but that is just a preference on my part. Besides, I still think it is too early to tag it as a meme. Regardless, with additional sources you should be able to make a pretty good case for undeletion in deletion review. It's worth a shot anyway if you feel strongly that this should be listed.--Isotope23 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your stand. I am hoping that I could garner some support to resurrect the article. If you could help me with it, I would appreciate the gesture greatly. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 06:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On his site, didn't he say he was doing a morning show about this, then he was done with media interviews etc... After that airs I think there will be sufficient media mention (especially if he was talking national... GMA, Today, etc.) to merit a run at undeletion.--Isotope23 13:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for undeletion

Under current guidelines, of Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, I believe there may be grounds under which this article can continue to exist under Wikipedia:Notability (memes) and WP:V. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 02:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the DRV is up at the moment, no one seems convinced though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link it? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#How_NOT_to_steal_a_SideKick_2 --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have formed my defence of the article. There are several factors in favour, that of all previous concerns being met and thus the fulfilment of the Wikipedia requirements. I think you may have provided a less able New York Times article which led to an early spew of Keep Deletion. The one in my backup referred to a full page article. I have already included it there although it may be too late. I have also raised the issue of the impartial-bility of the administrator and his conduct. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]