Wiki143:Articles for deletion/March Together For Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 delete discounting new users. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

March Together For Life

Script error: No such module "Message box". Non-notable blog; getting trolled by the Onion, while stupid, does not establish notability, especially in the case of an Internet phenomenon. dcandeto 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Hilarity alone doesn't establish notability. --Calair 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. More suited to encyclopaedia damatica, as funny as it is. Natgoo 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The funniest thing I've seen in months, but not remotely noteworthy. ~~ N (t/c) 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very funny, but this isn't a joke website. It's an encylopedia and this is completely un-noteworthy, plus it's on The Onion page anyway Tell me to get back to work! 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, it's great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.27.169 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't delete. A cautionary tale for those who take things too seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vought (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Delete - as much as I REALLY REALLY want to keep this article because the blog is F***ING HILARIOUS, it's not encyclopedic. Harvestdancer 02:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, merge it into the Internet Phenomena page. Harvestdancer 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - If Wikipedia doesn't memorialize this, who will? This is what Wikipedia does best.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.226.19 (talk • contribs) .
  • If it's Pete, you must not delete!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.225.58.25 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Speedy Keep. This must be immortalized for perpetuity. It's the greatest contribution to humor in the last 10 years! --Nropsevolselawobmij 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Jesus Christ on toast! This is an internet phenom approaching that of the most holy flying spaghetti monster. Wiki must preserve it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaroff (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep. While Fan-1967's right that it's not quite the same league as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, those figures need updating, the blog's over 100,000 hits in a single day. That said, I concur with Vought and 24.193.226.19. It's a very humorous cautionary tale -- and comment -- about information getting ahead of the facts on the Internet. We've got a confluence of satire, Internet rumor, lack of sourcing, rapid passing of the URL around the world, a soupcon of righteous zeal and the all-too-human fallacy of not knowing when to say "whoops, my bad." I think we can spare a page for this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slpva (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Don't delete, It's a part of internet history now... This is what Wikipedia is best at preserving. - skelm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.188.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to The Onion, seems like it would fit quite well in the section on The Onion taken seriously, and indeed already has a mention there. --Micpp 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for Now It's still getting a lot of attention, so we should at least keep it for now. This may be popular for weeks or months before it dies down. It should only be considered for deletion when nobody cares about it. If in a month this is receiving very little attention, then and only then should the article be deleted. Herorev 05:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above comments. Retain mention in the Onion's entry.—Wasabe3543 07:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete - like another user said, merge with internet phenomena; this will approach "all your base are belong to us" fame before long 65.102.139.43 08:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete - merge with Internet Phenomena --Yonmei 09:47 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, or at the very least merge with Internet Phenomena. Napalmtrees 172.191.130.62 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it is already mentioned in The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously." What more do you people want? It's not like this site is really important or anything. If it is satire, it's not as good as Landover Baptist Church or Lark News. Yes, it's funny. I laughed for a good 10 minutes upon reading it and had to wipe the tea I was drinking off the monitor screen. But humorous content does not worthy of a Wikipedia article make.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.181.0 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Funny, but ... No-one will care in two months time. Coverage at The Onion suffices. -- GWO
  • Keep - this article meets all the guidelines for articles about notable websites. -- kjkrum
  • Keep, Keep, KEEP. This is culturally important. Acts of stupidity should be given the same exposure as acts of great intellect, etc. It has happened, it is a factual event and should be documented as such. It is an incredible example of both stupidity but also the power of the internet. As a piece of factually accurate, social history it is indespensible and to think of deleting it is a contrary to the encyclopedic remit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.251.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete, merge with Internet Phenomena. The news of these entries has spread fairly quickly and across a large number of blogs, at this point being something akin to an Internet car wreck that people are coming to see just for fun. --208.41.98.142 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It, but merged with other Internet phenomena. It's an object lesson in what happens when blog authors forget the basics such as checking sources. 69.156.120.144 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It for the reason of "If you can't be a good example, be a horrible warning." Lobinho77 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep It This event is a historically noteworthy example of how quickly information is disseminated via the blogosphere. Bretttido 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep. Unless there is a specific, valid reason to delete it, I think it should stay. I've seen many entries that might be considered "not important" by some people. It's all subjective. Why delete this? I could imagine only Pete might want it deleted. Merriek 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep It, and add to other Internet phenomena. It is note worthy for several of the reasons noted above and meets the four criteria for worthyness. I don't see what "funny", or "nobody will care" have to do with it, those are just subjective takes on importance which all content is subject too. Who will care the Earth even existed in 10 Billion Years? Hard to say actually, which is why deleting should be a last resort. onNYTurf 16:27, 12 July 2006 (EST)
  • Comment Wikipedia:Notability_(web) lists three criteria for notability of websites. It's hard to see how this one fits any of those. --Calair 01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! It needs to be placed with other internet phenomena.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.200.210 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it A monument to vast stupidity, made the more poignant by the author's sad attempt to convince that he himself was joking in making it. RP. 20:10, 12 July 2006 (AST)
  • Delete VERY, very funny; but a flash-in-the-plan incident that is not enecyclopedic. Eusebeus 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , possbily merge - Article is short and deals with a single event, but that does not make it less notable. Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia and should contain articles dealing with any item of interest. It can be deleted at a later time if it proves to lack staying power. It should be linked from either the article on Internet Phenomina or The Onion, or possibly merged into one of those because of its brevity. kurtm3 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Internet Phenomena redirect the current article there. This will keep it from being recreated if it contines to be popular, and cleared out later if it is just a flash in the pan. Dimitrii 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It, but merge it with other Internet phenomena. It may get even 'bigger' if they're offering merchandise on this. L1759 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Watch out fo rhte sockpuppetry. Hbdragon88 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of merging it, either with Internet Phenomena or the Onion page.69.86.192.207 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Onion page would be the logical place, as it's closest to the Beijing Evening News incident, and it's already there. Fan-1967 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't decided either way yet, but I want to note that this story has made it to Salon.com SterlingNorth 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is mean and cowardly to ridicule a person for a harmless mistake, especially a sincere person, whether or not one agrees with that person's opinions. Besides, it isn't notable.Rich 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is definitely notable for several reasons. 1) It is a great example of the peculiar power of blogs to spread information to a large number of people, 2) more generally, it is an example of how the internet has changed what information gets made public and how that information is dispersed, 3)it is a prime example of the importance of checking sources before making information and opinions public, 4) it is topical to the nature and reliability of information found on the internet, 5) it is an example of how controversial and divisive issues such as abortion are in this society (esp. the U.S.) . Comparing this to the Great Spaghetti Monster, if you look on the original keep/delete comments on that article, much the same argument of notability was discussed there as well. In additional, this topic keeps going thanks to articles such as the one found in Salon. I don't understand why people should be so inflexible about what should be considered "notable" in Wikipedia. This is not a traditional print encyclopedia with typical entries. One of the reasons I come here personally is to get the straight scoop on topical events that are difficult to find elsewhere on the net, I also very much appreciate Wikipedia's responsiveness to new information. Sure, this topic isn't earth-shattering news, OTOH I can probably find 100 articles in here in a few minutes that many would consider less notable than this, and there is no debate on the "importance" of those topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toktun (talk • contribs) (This is user's second edit.)
  • Weak Keep: Noteworthiness is rising due to coverage by Salon, as mentioned above. I would think, however, this might be better merged in with The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously". --Flewellyn 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has a nice name, but sorry, I can't resist seeing it get deleted per WP:V. However, Google has 50,700 exact results... --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:02, 16 July 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 delete discounting new users. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

March Together For Life

Script error: No such module "Message box". Non-notable blog; getting trolled by the Onion, while stupid, does not establish notability, especially in the case of an Internet phenomenon. dcandeto 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Hilarity alone doesn't establish notability. --Calair 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. More suited to encyclopaedia damatica, as funny as it is. Natgoo 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The funniest thing I've seen in months, but not remotely noteworthy. ~~ N (t/c) 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very funny, but this isn't a joke website. It's an encylopedia and this is completely un-noteworthy, plus it's on The Onion page anyway Tell me to get back to work! 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, it's great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.27.169 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't delete. A cautionary tale for those who take things too seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vought (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Delete - as much as I REALLY REALLY want to keep this article because the blog is F***ING HILARIOUS, it's not encyclopedic. Harvestdancer 02:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, merge it into the Internet Phenomena page. Harvestdancer 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - If Wikipedia doesn't memorialize this, who will? This is what Wikipedia does best.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.226.19 (talk • contribs) .
  • If it's Pete, you must not delete!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.225.58.25 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Speedy Keep. This must be immortalized for perpetuity. It's the greatest contribution to humor in the last 10 years! --Nropsevolselawobmij 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Jesus Christ on toast! This is an internet phenom approaching that of the most holy flying spaghetti monster. Wiki must preserve it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaroff (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep. While Fan-1967's right that it's not quite the same league as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, those figures need updating, the blog's over 100,000 hits in a single day. That said, I concur with Vought and 24.193.226.19. It's a very humorous cautionary tale -- and comment -- about information getting ahead of the facts on the Internet. We've got a confluence of satire, Internet rumor, lack of sourcing, rapid passing of the URL around the world, a soupcon of righteous zeal and the all-too-human fallacy of not knowing when to say "whoops, my bad." I think we can spare a page for this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slpva (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Don't delete, It's a part of internet history now... This is what Wikipedia is best at preserving. - skelm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.188.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to The Onion, seems like it would fit quite well in the section on The Onion taken seriously, and indeed already has a mention there. --Micpp 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for Now It's still getting a lot of attention, so we should at least keep it for now. This may be popular for weeks or months before it dies down. It should only be considered for deletion when nobody cares about it. If in a month this is receiving very little attention, then and only then should the article be deleted. Herorev 05:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above comments. Retain mention in the Onion's entry.—Wasabe3543 07:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete - like another user said, merge with internet phenomena; this will approach "all your base are belong to us" fame before long 65.102.139.43 08:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete - merge with Internet Phenomena --Yonmei 09:47 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, or at the very least merge with Internet Phenomena. Napalmtrees 172.191.130.62 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it is already mentioned in The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously." What more do you people want? It's not like this site is really important or anything. If it is satire, it's not as good as Landover Baptist Church or Lark News. Yes, it's funny. I laughed for a good 10 minutes upon reading it and had to wipe the tea I was drinking off the monitor screen. But humorous content does not worthy of a Wikipedia article make.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.181.0 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Funny, but ... No-one will care in two months time. Coverage at The Onion suffices. -- GWO
  • Keep - this article meets all the guidelines for articles about notable websites. -- kjkrum
  • Keep, Keep, KEEP. This is culturally important. Acts of stupidity should be given the same exposure as acts of great intellect, etc. It has happened, it is a factual event and should be documented as such. It is an incredible example of both stupidity but also the power of the internet. As a piece of factually accurate, social history it is indespensible and to think of deleting it is a contrary to the encyclopedic remit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.251.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete, merge with Internet Phenomena. The news of these entries has spread fairly quickly and across a large number of blogs, at this point being something akin to an Internet car wreck that people are coming to see just for fun. --208.41.98.142 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It, but merged with other Internet phenomena. It's an object lesson in what happens when blog authors forget the basics such as checking sources. 69.156.120.144 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It for the reason of "If you can't be a good example, be a horrible warning." Lobinho77 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep It This event is a historically noteworthy example of how quickly information is disseminated via the blogosphere. Bretttido 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep. Unless there is a specific, valid reason to delete it, I think it should stay. I've seen many entries that might be considered "not important" by some people. It's all subjective. Why delete this? I could imagine only Pete might want it deleted. Merriek 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Keep It, and add to other Internet phenomena. It is note worthy for several of the reasons noted above and meets the four criteria for worthyness. I don't see what "funny", or "nobody will care" have to do with it, those are just subjective takes on importance which all content is subject too. Who will care the Earth even existed in 10 Billion Years? Hard to say actually, which is why deleting should be a last resort. onNYTurf 16:27, 12 July 2006 (EST)
  • Comment Wikipedia:Notability_(web) lists three criteria for notability of websites. It's hard to see how this one fits any of those. --Calair 01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! It needs to be placed with other internet phenomena.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.200.210 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it A monument to vast stupidity, made the more poignant by the author's sad attempt to convince that he himself was joking in making it. RP. 20:10, 12 July 2006 (AST)
  • Delete VERY, very funny; but a flash-in-the-plan incident that is not enecyclopedic. Eusebeus 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , possbily merge - Article is short and deals with a single event, but that does not make it less notable. Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia and should contain articles dealing with any item of interest. It can be deleted at a later time if it proves to lack staying power. It should be linked from either the article on Internet Phenomina or The Onion, or possibly merged into one of those because of its brevity. kurtm3 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Internet Phenomena redirect the current article there. This will keep it from being recreated if it contines to be popular, and cleared out later if it is just a flash in the pan. Dimitrii 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It, but merge it with other Internet phenomena. It may get even 'bigger' if they're offering merchandise on this. L1759 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Watch out fo rhte sockpuppetry. Hbdragon88 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of merging it, either with Internet Phenomena or the Onion page.69.86.192.207 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Onion page would be the logical place, as it's closest to the Beijing Evening News incident, and it's already there. Fan-1967 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't decided either way yet, but I want to note that this story has made it to Salon.com SterlingNorth 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is mean and cowardly to ridicule a person for a harmless mistake, especially a sincere person, whether or not one agrees with that person's opinions. Besides, it isn't notable.Rich 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is definitely notable for several reasons. 1) It is a great example of the peculiar power of blogs to spread information to a large number of people, 2) more generally, it is an example of how the internet has changed what information gets made public and how that information is dispersed, 3)it is a prime example of the importance of checking sources before making information and opinions public, 4) it is topical to the nature and reliability of information found on the internet, 5) it is an example of how controversial and divisive issues such as abortion are in this society (esp. the U.S.) . Comparing this to the Great Spaghetti Monster, if you look on the original keep/delete comments on that article, much the same argument of notability was discussed there as well. In additional, this topic keeps going thanks to articles such as the one found in Salon. I don't understand why people should be so inflexible about what should be considered "notable" in Wikipedia. This is not a traditional print encyclopedia with typical entries. One of the reasons I come here personally is to get the straight scoop on topical events that are difficult to find elsewhere on the net, I also very much appreciate Wikipedia's responsiveness to new information. Sure, this topic isn't earth-shattering news, OTOH I can probably find 100 articles in here in a few minutes that many would consider less notable than this, and there is no debate on the "importance" of those topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toktun (talk • contribs) (This is user's second edit.)
  • Weak Keep: Noteworthiness is rising due to coverage by Salon, as mentioned above. I would think, however, this might be better merged in with The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously". --Flewellyn 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has a nice name, but sorry, I can't resist seeing it get deleted per WP:V. However, Google has 50,700 exact results... --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:02, 16 July 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/March_Together_For_Life&oldid=3138830"