Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third 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 Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-P-P-Powerbook

edit

If a joke eBay auction is considered notable just because it got some fleeting media coverage, then everything that gets a little media coverage is notable. And that's just not so, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines for notability. wikipediatrix 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, you must have forgotten: There aren't any policies or guidelines for notability. 66.82.9.81 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in[reply]
"Oh whoops" yourself, you must have forgotten, for instance, WP:MUSIC which states in great big bold-face letters at the top: "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia". There's an entire category for these policies and guidelines you claim don't exist. It's called Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. wikipediatrix 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, User:Some Random IP is right - WP:MUSIC is a guideline for music, not for notability. WP:N is neither a policy nor a guideline. WilyD 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I know it's a guideline for music, what's your point? It's also about notability in music. Maybe you should remove the giant boldface phrase "notability criteria guideline" from WP:MUSIC then, and several other guidelines as well. And I didn't say anything about WP:N, that's something you brought up. wikipediatrix 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that its not a guideline for notability - it's a guideline for music. It establishes certain guidelines pretaining to music, and uses the term notability, but doesn't establish any guidelines about notability. There are no notability guidelines. It may be a somewhat semantic point, but the net result is that notability isn't important for P-P-P-Powerbook. WilyD 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't establish any guidelines about notability, why does it say "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia"? Why does it go on to say "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable"? And why does it have a column on the right listing many other articles, under the header "Notability guidelines"? Yes, you do indeed seem to be making an extremely semantic point, as does the anon IP. wikipediatrix 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The upshot of it is that notability is not, nor is it supposed to be, a grounds for deletion except in specific cases (i.e. where we need to combat spam). Which is why notability is not a criterion for deletion in a huge variety of fields, like math, science and so on. If you think WP:MUSIC is about notability, you've missed the point of it entirely. WilyD 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've changed the subject and are arguing about something else entirely. Since you didn't address my point, just pretend I cut and pasted my above paragraph all over again. wikipediatrix 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the point you're making, if you've missed it, you'll have to read my comments again. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is (at least) the third nomination, not the second as advertised. WilyD 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Its existance [sic] isn't hurting anyone" isn't a Wikipedia-policy based observation. My Uncle Ned was on Fox News for winning a shopping spree in a workplace lottery. So you're saying he gets an article too?? wikipediatrix 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are not a big deal - they're all covered in the references. WilyD 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important comment: FWIW, this is actually the third, not second, AfD nomination for this article. While it reached no consensus on the initial AfD last October, it survived by a long shot in April here. I wasn't aware of this until just now. I have moved the AfD page accordingly. --Czj 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It was an internet phenomenon at that time and it is relevant for the advance fee fraud and also escrow scams. --Ageo020 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an awesome story, and it deserves to be in this Wiki. Remember, this is an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.125.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is one of the only online pranks I've ever heard of. --Liface 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as probably one of the top 2 or 3 SomethingAwful-spawned pranks. Needs to establish importance, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Among internet vigilantes this is a classic. I heard about it long before I read it here.--Esprit15d 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned above, searching for this meme in Google yields thousands of results. Ben 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I being the one who went through all of this, I would like to see it stay. I will edit the page and give it a little bit more detail to maybe make it a little bit more acceptable. Also, this wasn't just an internet prank, this was an operation that spanned from Seattle to London! A huge internet collaboration should be noted. Message me on AIM if you dissagree. MyNameIsJeph - I can add sources, I have the emails along with headers, and I have pictures of recipts and video from inside the shop. What else can I add?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.77.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup. Fairly notable Internet meme. AgentPeppermint 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Group into new article First of all, this isn't a meme, and calling it that is a wild misuse of the term. That being said, it is a notable prank. Wouldn't it be better to create a single page along the lines of "Internet Pranks" or "Ebay Pranks" and file this in there? P-P-P-Powerbook can just redirect to that article along with all the other internet pranks that may not be notable enough to stand alone in an article. Vesperal 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One problem with this proposal: This is not a prank. This guy almost got scammed and then turned it around on the scammer. The person had every real intention of just going on eBay and selling a Powerbook until he realized he was about to get bamboozled. This, my friend, is vigilante action.--Esprit15d 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason for this to be deleted. Sven Erixon 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons above.
  • Keep, this is a useful report of how a fake scrow scam works. —Rotring 19:18, 21 August 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/P-P-P-Powerbook_(third_nomination)&oldid=1138194866"