Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Redirect to Internet_vigilantism#Dog_Poop_Girl. Never mind all the circular arguments about BLP and BLP1E, what it boils down to is that this news story - and that is exactly what it is (WP:NOT#NEWS anyone)? isn't notable enough to stand as an individual article. In the Internet vigilantism article, however, it works fine. I haven't deleted the history, so anything else that people would like to move over to the other article is there, but I'd suggest that people don't try to recreate this article in the other one. A certain level of detail is fine. Black Kite 10:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dog poop girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Non-notable, single event internet meme. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The Boxxy article was deleted because it lacked reliable sources. The references for that article were all blogs, which don't qualify. If this article had the same problems I'd be advocating its deletion as well, however this article has such sources as The Washington Post and New York Times. -- Atamachat 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you get into newspaper blogs, they move away from the traditional meaning of "blog" and towards an editorial piece. I specifically remembering it appearing in print media. Sceptre (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why suggest delete and link to a policy statement that clear states "Notability is not temporary"? --neon white talk 23:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unfamiliar with the details about Boxxy, but the deletion of the cat incident was a clear BLP violation because it focused on the negative actions of a minor. Nearly all the sources mentioned his name and he was the target of 4chan and others who have sworn to hunt the kid down and avenge the cat. That's clearly a case where privacy should be our primary concern. - Mgm|(talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guidelines about avoiding people famous for a single event are very important and useful but we have to consider the amount of discussion that event generates in academic/intellectual circles. Crispus Attucks is only famous for a single event as well, but we wouldn't send him to AfD. --Boston (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let's see the intro of the compared article. Crispus Attucks (c. 1723 – March 5, 1770) was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre in Boston, Massachusetts. He has been frequently named as the first martyr of the American Revolution and is the only Boston Massacre victim whose name is commonly remembered. He is regarded as an important and inspirational figure in American history.. You got a wrong example.--Caspian blue 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am hardly numb to the gravity of what Attucks represents versus the banality of what Dpg represents. But it's still an excellent illustrative example. All we really know about Attucks is that he caught a bullet. Attucks' notability comes entirely from later discussion of that one brief event. Look at the words in the quote you use..."frequently named"..."commonly remembered"..."he is regarded"...and the rest of the article is the same. He was at the wrong place at the the right time; the subsequent discussion made him notable. --Boston (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty focused on that to me. Aside from the explaination of the incident which is necessary, the rest is about the reaction on the internet and media. --neon white talk 23:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How would the literal translation be the word "shit"? The word I assume is Korean or something for feces. The word "shit" carries with it a large number of different meanings including: feces, stuff, garbage, good stuff, something amazing, etc. -- so it's different than a generic word for feces. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not demonstrate any historic notability. It is merely news based on a short burst of news reports about a single event. It fits exactly with the pattern of things that should not be on wikipedia according to our own policies and guidelines. (FWIW, reference 9 starts to comes near to historic notability - at least someone has reflected on the incident. Were there more coverage in the article of the reaction or even interest after 2005, the article might qualify for historical notability. Meanwhile some of the content could be merged into Internet vigilantism, which would be a better fit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content here already exists as a subsection of that article Fritzpoll (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A brief summary, linking to the full article, exist in Internet vigilantism. If the information is relevant, and won't fit on one page, then you make a side page for it, a separate article. Dream Focus 10:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not quite - all the information specific to this incident is on Internet vigilantism, from description of the incident to her quitting the university, to the fact that there was media reaction to the effect of the vigilatism. There is nothing here to merge because it is all already in the body of the more appropriate article. The sources in internet vigilatism might be different, but the content is essentially the same Fritzpoll (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - No it isn't. The Internet vigilantism article summarizes information found in this article. To say that "all of it" is in the body of the article is misleading. Have you compared them? -- Atamachat 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yep. In my view the substance is the same, even if this current article is more verbose in saying it. I gain no additional information from the article than I do from the subsection. I am aware that this is subjective, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Internet vigilantism per BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. Does not fulfill "historic notability" requirement and all relevant information is already contained within Internet vigilantism, making this article redundant and unnecessary. Adam Zel (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those policies apply to this article. It is neither a bio nor a news event. --neon white talk 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of room for improvements, but notable nonetheless.Unionsoap (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If you read WP:BLP1E (which multiple people are claiming as a reason to delete this article) it states that a biographical article should not be created for a person who is notable for a single event. Rather, it states that you should "cover the event, not the person". That is being done here. This article is not about the person, it does not even name her or give any information about the person other than information relevant to the event itself, the article is about the event that took place and the consequences of such event (this is explicitly stated in the introduction). Since this is not a biographical article any suggestions of deletion based on WP:BLP are as invalid as deleting the NASCAR article for the same reasons. Aside from that, the article is shown to be notable by citing reliable sources that verify what is in the article. It was a mistake to nominate this article for deletion in the first place. Perhaps a merge to the article on Internet vigilantism (if all information is preserved without expanding that article too far), but there hasn't been a single viable justification for a deletion given yet. -- Atamachat 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the guidelines at WP:MERGE, i don't think any of the reasons for merging that are listed can be applied to this article. --neon white talk 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be merged, then I'd say to leave it be. Deleting it doesn't seem justified by policy. -- Atamachat 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No need to merge what is already there: Internet_vigilante#Dog_Poop_Girl. That would make this article a dupe would it not? WikiScrubber (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out countless times, this is not a bio article so WP:ONEEVENT is irrelevant. Notability policy also states 'notability is not temporary' and 'there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic', as this was considered notable at the time and in 3 subsequent afds, it cannot simply become non-notabile because more time has passed. --neon white talk 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the EFF: "To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president." WikiScrubber (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decided Keep of this odorferous article. The article is about an event and its many repercussions, and uses as article name, the "name" given the event in sources. The article is about the event and its repercussions, not about the woman. The woman discussed became herself a public figure when she personally made a public apology. So covering her (in)actions, the public's outcry, the subsequent results, and her public aplogy is not a BLP violation... no more than an article about Mark David Chapman is a violation. And it does demonstrate hitorical notability as shown by its multiple sources... heck, I love that the failed 2005 deletion effort itself even made the news: New York Times. To those quoting WP:NOT#NEWS, it has to be remembered that if it happened today or yesterday, it was news.... but if it happened 4 or 5 or 20 or 50 years ago, it has become history and can be treated properly in retrospect. Point here being is that wikipedia depends quite heavily on "news" as sources for its articles. Nearly everything within these pages was "news" at one time or another. The goal here is to give balanced coverage of a subject and source back to reliable sources... and that has been done. And to thos faling back on WP:ONEEVENT as an argument, this is not a BLP and ONEEVENT does not apply. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of a weak argument to compare this article to Mark David Chapman. The latter killed one of the United Kingdom's most famous musicians. The former... let her dog shit on a floor. Sceptre (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually quite bad taste to even suggest the two are in the same league. BLP exists to mitigate the risk of defamation which is still clearly present here, per above. There has been no secondary analysis whatsoever and no precedent set - it's obviously ephemeral. WP:BLP (WP:BLP1E) applies. WP:NOTNEWS (WP:SBST) applies. And if you're going to use big words to bolster your argument be sure to spell them correctly: it's odoriferous. What's a 'decided keep' when it's at home anyway? WikiScrubber (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a bio article. How many times does that need to be pointed out? The subject of the article is a serious of events not a person. The lead clearly states that. It is better to compare it to Death of John Lennon, that article is not about John Lennon and not about Mark Chapman, but about events they were both involved in. It would be ridiculous and incorrect to judge the notability of that article using Wikipedia:Notability_(people). The same applies to this article. --neon white talk 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Its not about WP:PEOPLE, its about WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the examples coming guys, you're cracking me up. So far we've seen a four year old dog shit compared to murderer Mark David Chapman, murdered Crispus Attucks and the Death of John Lennon. And you guys are actually serious too which makes it all the more hilarious. Apparently some of you believe that inserting the word "incident" into the lede makes this article less about the girl and more about the shit but others of us (including the article title I might add) don't concur. None of you have felt it necessary to explain how this article is somehow immune to the defamation problems that WP:BLP exists to avoid given its victim is readily identifiable (including from the references) and until you do, so far as I'm concerned this falls squarely under the WP:BLP policy irrespective of how you reword it. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2009 (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/Dog_poop_girl_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1137793414"