Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blurpinkle

Add links
Source: 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 delete and salt.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blurpinkle

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
Blurpinkle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)Contested speedy. Neologism with notability asserted by submitter, but with most Google hits being eBay references pointing back to submitter's commercial art operation. --Finngall talk 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This has been speedied at least once today already, taking my google research on the talk page with it. Short version 2,910 G-hits, nearly all ebay and myspace links created by someone with a username of blurpinkle selling the related products. No hits on G-news archive for term. Keeps reposting article with claims of "added/adding notability" but only further links to websites by creator of term. Improbcat 19:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt if necessary. Blatant self-promotion. -- RHaworth 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, as above. Should also include Blackout (entertainer) and Michael Biggins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This aticle was created as an expantion to the already established aticle on american entertainer Blackout of whom I an many others am a fan of and who's notability has already been well established in book, film, magazine, newspaper, as well as internet sources for over 10 years. Blackout.com and blurpinkle are free sites and while there is merchandise sold under the ebay username blurpinkle by Blackout (Michael Biggins) this does not negate notability. Does one delete Walt Disney because of the ridiculous amount of merchandising it does? My goal in this was to make it its own section to expand on the meditation, color explanation, and meaning behind blurpinkle, not to get people to buy anything, so I am removing any commercial looking links and expanding sniglet, spiritual, story and meditation meanings which are related to ascended master and violet flame meditation techniques which has a strong global human interest. Google is not the end all be all of research and unfortunately google usually puts commercial links FIRST in including EBAY because they are PAID to do so. ManofToth 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment What you say about Google may be true, but if one runs the Google search again leaving out all the eBay results, there isn't much left. --Finngall talk 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am showing over 2000 Blurpinkle hits on google searching for blurpinkle -ebay links. The word is used by many people in various terms on all sorts of sights including social networking sites to refer to not only the color combo, but meditation, and acronym meanings. Example, the google search -ebay brings up various users using such as: "wishing you good blurpinkle vibes", you have a "blurpinkle aura", "send me some blurpinkle energy!". While this may be considered 'new agey' or silly to some, that is a matter of opinion and does not reduce notability. The word would definitely be referred to at this point as a sniglet with growing use. I have bookmarked somewhere a very long article from a national source on blurpinkle that has nothing to do with merchandising at all. Please give me more time to fill this out I do admit I saved it too fast without it being complete but I will rectify that. Thank you. ManofThoth 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

  • Delete and SALT, I was the one who deleted it once today, and my rationale stands - neither does it mention any claim of notability (a claim that has merits according to WP:N and WP:RS) nor does independent verification yields any evidence of widespread usage. --soum (0_o) 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - non-notable, no sources, self-promotion. --Haemo 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Complete, obvious, and blatant self-promotion. Jmlk17 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, apparent promotional article. It might also be worth mentioning that this is one of a cluster of similar articles created by User:ManofThoth, all of whose contributions to date appear to relate to this performer: see Blackout (entertainer), Michael Biggins, Gladys Ridgeford, all of which link to the same website, sometimes multiple times. Similar promotional material has been added to Prank call, and a link to the same website has also been added to the Blackout disambig page. -- The Anome 21:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the other pages should be added to this AfD? --Finngall talk 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the links at the end of Blackout (entertainer), I can see only one link that seems to be from a mainstream reliable source that is primarily about its subject, namely the magazine article at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2003-07-24/news/blackout-com/ As far as I can tell, all of the other links on that page appear to me to be either supporting citations for other things in the article, self-cites, or (in the other case of a published source) a very brief mention in a listing. I'm not sure whether this is enough to meet the WP:BIO criteria, which asks for the subject to be the subject of multiple independent published works from reliable, verifiable sources. I'd certainly like to see more proof that this individual meets WP:BIO. -- The Anome 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say nominate Gladys Ridgeford for deletion, and merge the other two, namely, Blackout (entertainer) and Michael Biggins into the latter, if not delete them outright. But I cannot see how it meets the notability criterion of WP:BLP. --soum (0_o) 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This has all been gone through before. I am not the person who has written everything on Blackout and or Michael Biggins, but I did contribute quite a bit when I saw the page getting vandalized every other day. User:CharnoMe did the majority of the original writeups and already fought this battle. Look at the history of the Blackout (Entertainer) page and the prank call page and you will see the original notability arguments that were all satisfied and sited by numerous contributers and defenders. Of course there are vandals who delete and change fact. Here is fact: NUMEROUS notability sources have been sited beyond the New Times article including Harley Hahns internet directory (2 million + copies in print) PRINT - at a bookstore, not a google search, of which I have a hard copy and will gladly scan for you, as well as television and film links on major networks which are online with full credits. Newspaper articles from the Miami Herald including reviews for his off broadway shows, and internick proof and real audio proof that this person was one of the internet streaming media pioneers as well as THE first to stream a prank call. Show me a streaming prank call and entertainment site before 1995 when 14.4 modems were around? I came on to defend an artist that I and many others have gotten much enjoyment from from his creativity. He is not a huge marketer, his sites are free. He now has a major movie coming out in theatres. What more notability do you want? Multiple newspaper articles and reviews as well as top honors in the biggest selling internet yellow pages hardcopy of all time. Must someone be a God to not be deleted in this place? All the sources are sited and he even came on one time himself in the discussion section on prank calls stating he was not a 'wikipedian' but he wanted to know if he was allowed to correct errors and vandalism/slander. Since he was not answered fans have taken on the task. I think the spirit of wikipedia should be to expand ideas and information on notable creatives. My favorites tends towards interactive artists and comedians, this is not a 15 year old kid trying to get hits to his website, he is an artist. His site is somewhere in the 300,000 alexa.com index, but that should not matter. I have written on his bulletin boards and mailing list for other wikipedians to make a statement here. In the prank calls section there is constant vandalism by people just trying to get there little shoutcast station at the top. This is not what this is about.

ManofThoth 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

  • Comment Let's see. The "major movie" appears to be Film Contest?, which doesn't look all that major to me, but I'll let bigger film buffs than myself make that call. Also note that this is Biggins' only credit in IMDb. That doesn't preclude notability in other realms of entertainment, of course, but I thought it deserved a mention.
  • "[O]ver 2000 Blurpinkle hits on google searching for blurpinkle -ebay links": Okay, I checked this further, and if you filter out all the entries on blackout.com (most of which result from bulletin board entries), that leaves only 55 hits, and most of those are on flapdaddy.com and Myspace. Make of that what you will.
  • This isn't a vote. I look forward to seeing opinions of editors who support the retention of this article if that will help the creation of a consensus, but canvassing the bulletin board for support isn't quite kosher, and accounts and IP addresses with few or no edits beyond the subject of these article will be noted as such. --Finngall talk 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - Neologism without a source for its origin aside from links to the comedian's web page. Editor also appears to confuse Site (website?) with Citations(WP:CITE or WP:CITET).Also suggest deleting the articles mentioned by Anome. Aside from the small newspaper article none of appear to them reference anything aside from the comedian and his website directly.Optigan13 03:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • COMMENT in response to Optigan13. Did you not read and check my above statements and also all the OUTSIDE of Blackout's website SITE refernces? The cite and site were typos on my part, I apologize. In both articles the references listed were two major national and international magazines - NEW TIMES and .NET. New Times has multiple references to Blackout/Michael Biggins in three seperate articles both online and in print. Harley Hahn's Internet Yellow Pages is also an independent outside source and one of the largest selling internet computer books of all time - over 2 million copies in PRINT as well as an ONLINE site and has Blackout listed 2nd under the BEST OF INTERNET HUMOR section for 3 years in a row in the print version and still in the online version. There is a full one page color article in the internation UK .NET magazine dating back from 1998 (before this zolar and pcu shoutcast stuff that you promote ever existed, and of which I see NO outside independent refernces for other than that Zolar has been on the Howard Stern show. Blackout and Michael Biggins also have IMDB references, Miami Herald references, AS WELL as Howard Stern references - since you seem to think that Howard Sterm mentioning you (according to your Zolar and PCU contributions) makes one instantly notable for wikipedia. All of the refernces I have just listed above (not all contributed by me, by the way - check the history of the entries, many contribs by CharNoMe, HighFidelity, and many others and NO they are not me 'sockpuppeting') are NOT self references that refer FROM the Blackout.com site itself to itself. They are all major, credible, INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE sources that have been listed, referenced, and linked to in the PROPER wikipedia format and not only MEET but far EXCEED wikipedias notability guidelines. I should not have to repeat every link to them in this discussion because YOU failed to look. You talk about Neologism when that is in fact what you are doing. Your only contributions to the PRANK CALL section were promotional listings and links to shoutcast radio websites for PCU and Zolar - both of which have COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING, while contributions about Blackout and Biggins include useful information on the time line and technology and growth of prank calling from trading tapes to the modern mp3 and video streaming of today. Blackout's sites and live shows (at least on the internet) are FREE other than accepted donations. I think the term for this is 'the pot calling the kettle black'. He should not be deleted because he happens to sell some things on ebay or because one has to actually pay to buy a movie ticket to a film he is in. Speaking of which, in repsonse to Fingal's comment on "Film Contest?" in which you said, "doesn't look all that major to me," That is your opinion, which you are of course entitled to, but it has nothing to do with the notability or credibility of the film. How can you make statements like that when you have not even seen the film? I have not seen the film yet either, but it is a feature length film, made by an albeit somewhat new but award winning (at major film festivals) director, and the movie is playing at a world wide respected film festival (PALM BEACH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL), of which tickets are available on ticketmaster AND which is listed in IMDB. That sounds pretty credible and noteworthy to me. This is not a film playing in someone's basement or some unheard of made up internet film festival. Lesser entries from 14 year old kids with no notability whatsoever have been sprayed all over and not been deleted from the prank calls section, the independent films section, as well as many other entries. I think I and others have provided more than enough outside documentation and I think blurpinkle should stay but I am willing to clean it up and or merge it into one of the other categories if NON BIASED wikipedians truly check the sources I have referenced and believe it should be done. Optigan13 and Anome are biased towards PCU and Zolar (which I have nothing against by the way - I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of their comments for 'deletion because of blatent self promotion and Neologism and non notability' when the contribs they did to the prank call section were blatent promotion with no useful information other than site links. I also do not think that Blackout & Michael Biggins should be merged. Even though one person, they are two distinctly billed personas with most notabiliy going to Biggins performing as Blackout, yet IMDB lists him as both Michael Biggins and Blackout, and various outsite sources review him as actor Michael Biggins and performer or singer or radio/tv show host Blackout. Example: the Miami Herald review of the Off-Broadway play "Grandma Sylvia's Funeral" bills him as actor Michael Biggins while NEW TIMES refers to him as 'Blackout'. Also, I think listing every character he does on one page under Blackout would ridiculously clog up the page. He has a huge amount of characters and notability in various artistic endeavors, not just prank calls. These characters are known and have thousands of links to them from every media combing site from ebaums to xyz video & prank site. In any case, I am out to improve and expand upon within wikipedia biography and topic and category guidelines, not destroy or delete or spam.

ManofThoth 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

Arbitrary section break

  • Would somebody explain to this editor how to read a WP:DIFF. I tried but he is still confused about my edits to the Prank call page, and the edits after mine. Also, that page might need an RFC on its content since that content appears to be part of this dispute. Optigan13 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please keep your comments short. Long ones make it very harder to read. At least, break it up into small paragraphs. Now coming back to what I want to say, even if a person is notable, every word that he cooks up does not automatically become notable. Even if the references assert Michael Higgins' notability, they do assert notability of the term Blurpinkle unless they mention it with respect to it being used by a sizable population. Do the references state that? --soum (0_o) 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I only made my reply as lengthy as it was to fully explain the references and proper siting which apparently everyone said was not there when it clearly is. Optigan: I am aware of the difference view of articles and I am aware of your edits and Anome's edits. Another edit has been done that edited down things while still including the Zolar and PCU information under another section. This I am fine with, I was not fine with people deleting long standing and confirmed sections of an article that have already gone through a wikepedia check and approval process (which is has some time ago) As for Soumyasch's comments: I am aware that not every word of a notable person needs to be included but I found the term blurpinkle odd fitting in the Blackout or Biggins page and since it does have a sizeable amount of usage and it is unique of itself that I see, I felt it warranted a seperate section such as an actor might have an entry, yet so does a film, they don't try to cram everything into one page. That is what this debate is about. 'sizable population' is a vague term. Search engine results show many hits and various usages (not only ebay sales). It is used as a color description, spiritual term, in magic and magick circles (which many find idiotic but many find interesting) just as there is the principa discordia and such oddities that have a unqique following, that is what Blurpinkle is. I am cutting through the chaff and coming up with more references to solidify this. Thank You for your time and consideration.

ManofThoth 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

  • ManofThoth, if you're going to use a sockpuppet IP to introduce allegedly "independent" comments as you did above, you could at least do a better job of keeping the accounts straight: diff1 diff2 --Finngall talk 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still appear to be confused. I didn't blank the section. The section was blanked by the user after me. See the diff here. The user on the left (me), made the previous edit, the IP user on the right made the edits you keep referring to. So when you incorrectly blame me for the edit including putting an invalid warning on my page[1], blaming me by name on the prank call talk page[2] both in the section title and in the edit summary, and continue to attack me in an attempt to discredit valid criticism of the articles being discussed, I am going to be more than a little bit annoyed. Optigan13 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am blurpinkle and I am real magickal gayness! Please, please don't delete me or the world will die without my fairy dust and blue and purple and pink aliester cowgay peter pan wanna be scientology sounding biting crap that I lackout and my lackies must spread to the universe before 2012 and everything blows up! Blurpinkle 00:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Blurpinkle — Blurpinkle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • If the above user account is not a sock, then it is very likely there is a COI here. --soum (0_o) 07:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not a sockpuppet that is this computers IP address and I did not log in and then I logged in and fixed things as I do many times. I many times have edited without being logged in. I changed the wording appears to be an edit to there is an edit. I do CONSTRUCTIVE edits not destructive edits. It does appear I was wrong on Optigan13 being the blanker - it was that the blanker posted exactly what Optigan13 added (pcu and Zolar info) while deleting the entire prank calls and the internet section. Sorry about that Opt (and I hope you are not that ip address and if you are not then I sincerely apologize). I have just further edited all of the sections mentioned to make them as non biased as possible and simply fact based while icluding all relative information from only searchable independant sources on all front. For a long time the prank call section AND the Blackout section were continuously vandalized by PCU fans and users (this was during a time when it was run by tedweb not Zolar). When I and several others stepped in to try and stop the vandalism and make and organized and truthful effort of verified facts, it would get blanked or changed or such as what has happened above with a user now pretending to be Blurpinkle in order to mock it. ManofThoth 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]
        • I didn't add anything to that article. I did a link repair, and a removal of external links from the see also section. My edit. Optigan13 07:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt: Neologism. --Ragib 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Duper Ultra Strong (like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rocky sorta Strong) Keep, and Pepper (since a lot of people here are putting too much salt) and Lemon and Blurpinkle this article. HattedOne 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HattedOne [reply]
  • Comment: Well HI there folks! This is Blackout - or Michel Biggins, the person in question of whom all this debate is going on. I was summoned here by some little elves on my bulletin board and ManofChickenBroth. I don't know how I would PROVE that this is the real me. Is there some sort of way of doing that? Like a signature thing like there is on Amazon? Or perhaps I could mention that I wrote this in one of my films and say hi wikipedia nuts - you wacky guys!!. — HattedOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hmmm. Ok, lets see, this is only the second time I have come here logged on and with an account and everything to actually say something. The first was about a year ago when I found out a group of people had done a big bio on me and I was all flattered and honored (I didn't really know what wikipedia was at the time I thought it was a big webzine) but it contained a bunch of errors and I asked if I could fix them (when I finally figured out that wikipedia was really an encyclipedia for wiccans or witches - kidding. kidding, that's a joke, get it?) but apparantly you're not supposed to edit your own article (which I can kind of understand... everybody would by writing about how great they are, but then again that might be fun) but then, and I guess this sort of thing was bound to happen to me being that I was a prank caller for many years - a bunch of mean people (or actually just dumb competitive prank calling kids having fun) would constantly go in and change my bio and the section on me in the prank calling category to say things like "Blackout begain his anal raping career and useless life as a monkey ass licker and lame prank caler and wanna be actor caller ect ect...". In all actuallty it was kind of funny and I laughed and even saved some of them. Being an actor/comedian, you have to learn to roll with this sort of thing.

Of course, then it would be corrected or un-vandalized and then re-re-vandalized, and re-re-un-re-vandalized and ect ect ect. I wondered how any article could be truthful when it seemed anyone could destroy any article or change it at any time. Then, a bunch of what I will call passionate fans persisted in restoring the vandalism and then some sort of 'wikipedia god' stepped in and fixed everything and locked it down or something to that effect. I still don't quite get Wikipedia because it seems that only crazy 'I wikipedia all day' sort of people are the ones who can lock down and protect articles but then many of these types of people are very biased in their opinions so still, every once in a while I get an e-mail or a message board post to the effect of "Blackout, someone totally F***ed your wikipedia entry, you better look and fix it cause every other site pulls from wikipedia," and various things like that. Usually I don't bother with it but every once in a while I come to see what's written, such as now. It's kind of a weird experience to read a bio having to do with yourself or on your work when you are yourself and you really know the truth and you can see what's right, what's wrong, what's kind of close, what's absolutely false, and what's...how shall I put it...WTF!?!!? but you can't do anything about it. In any case. Manofthoth (just kiding with the whole broth thing-no offense) and any others who have taken the time to write or try and keep articles about me accurate - I do thank you for your efforts, but these 'wikiwars' are silly and if they want to delete the entry on blurpinkle that's perfectly fine with me. I may shed a small tear but I think I'll be allright. As to the biography pages on me, I do have a little more concern, because people DO take wikipedia to be some sort of ultimate source of godly knowledge. I am not interested in self promotion or getting more links to me in this place, but I would like things written to at least be accurate. Can someone point me to some sort of guideline of what to do when you are the actual subject of a wikipedia article and you know certain facts are off or wrong? I would greatly appreciate it. As to this article, do what you will. Yes, Blurpinkle is a complex subject that a sizeable but specific group of people use and know about. Yes, I also do sell Blurpinkle Books on ancient texts such as the Great White Brotherhood (no, not the KKK before anyone says something) and esoteric topics like the master key system and the science of getting rich and many philosophical items as blurpinkle toys on ebay. Am I interested in using wikipedia to further my sales or some self agrandizing agenda? No. Would I like the aticles that are written about me to be at least accurate? Yes. That is my statement, and it goes the same for my bio. I won't be offended or take it personally if you delete this blurpinkle topic but if it stays I would hope that the information is correct and I will gladly point you to sources. I don't even know what the hell neogalism is but I'll be sure to check that out. Thank you all, you crazy wikipedianderthals, and I say that with love. Goodnight. HattedOne 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HattedOne[reply]

    • PS: I did register as Blackout one time but I don't think I even put an e-mail in. Is there some way of resetting this or proving it is actually me? Also.. I am obviously not the user Blurpinkle, someone has taken that name. Is there a way to get that back? Can some wikipedian authority mail me at blackout@blackout.com? Please if anyone can help me with this or the other questions I stated in my above paragraph, e-mail me or answer on my talk page. It would be much appreciated. Thanks again. Blackout, Michael Biggins HattedOne 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HattedOne[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/Blurpinkle&oldid=1137633951"