Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day
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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable event. Not the subject of significant mention in thrid-party sources. Wikipedia is not for publicity for things made up one day. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's the subject of significant mention in *many* third-party sources, per the above search link. It was "made up one day" but it spread like wildfire and it's been continuing for several years, with many notable award-winning authors participating. -- BunsenH (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds, including third-party coverage in Galley Cat and Boing Boing. - Dravecky (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is BoingBoing considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability? (I'm not familiar with MediaBistro.) Nevertheless the coverage is rather scant at the sources you linked. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per BunsenH. –SJ+ 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references in the article and both the examples above appear to be blogs, not reliable sources. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the whole point of the event is to post material for free on-line, it's unsurprising that most of the coverage is in blogs. -BunsenH (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but we require verification from reliable sources, and it is well-established that blogs are not in general reliable in our sense. Is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, as WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Dravecky (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite correct, which is why I said "in general". However, the exception is for verifiability. Notability requires reliable third-party sources, an additional condition, so the exception you quote does not apply here. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, because your comment was prefaced "Maybe so, but we require verification from reliable sources" you appeared to be talking about verifiability. You even linked it to WP:V so my apparent confusion as to your point is not exclusive. - Dravecky (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite correct, which is why I said "in general". However, the exception is for verifiability. Notability requires reliable third-party sources, an additional condition, so the exception you quote does not apply here. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, as WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Dravecky (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but we require verification from reliable sources, and it is well-established that blogs are not in general reliable in our sense. Is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Howard V. Hendrix. The day itself does not appear to have received sufficient reliable coverage to satisfy notability requirements, but the incident did (see Google Books for a couple of sources). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If merging, it might make more sense to merge to Jo Walton, who created the response, rather than to Hendrix, whose comments initiated the reaction, but didn't participate in the event.Shsilver (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments themselves seem to be more notable than the response to them, but that would also make sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The event has been going on for years, and the participating authors are *much* better known than Hendrix is. (See the list in the article, and -- again -- the search link above.) Why do you think that the comments are more notable than the response? BunsenH (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's what I found significant coverage in independent reliable sources on. The notability of the individuals isn't at issue - I agree Walton is more notable than Hendrix, but the event cannot inherit her notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The event has been going on for years, and the participating authors are *much* better known than Hendrix is. (See the list in the article, and -- again -- the search link above.) Why do you think that the comments are more notable than the response? BunsenH (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments themselves seem to be more notable than the response to them, but that would also make sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If merging, it might make more sense to merge to Jo Walton, who created the response, rather than to Hendrix, whose comments initiated the reaction, but didn't participate in the event.Shsilver (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (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.