Talk:Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse

Trivial
While I appreciate the work Mbz1 has put into the article, the topic is truly trivial. There is no evidence that the CDC blog post has not already had its 15 minutes of publicity (and yes, I've read the New York Times and other media articles). If the blog post took the topic of zombies seriously and in great detail--say, perhaps citing Max Brooks' World War Z--then the article might be justifiable. If the article had the blog-post equivalent of the >100 million YouTube views and counting, and innumerable news articles and other media coverage, that "Friday" has had, sure. But 60,000 hits in one day and a crashed Webserver? Does that mean that every single Website that the Slashdot effect has crashed in the past 15 years deserves a Wikipedia article? Of course not.

At the end of the day we are talking about a brief blog post that cleverly used zombies in order to get some extra attention to a list of practical and worthwhile disaster-preparation tips. A laudable goal, and one I'm glad the CDC succeeded in accomplishing, but does it really deserve anything more than the brief paragraph that already existed in Zombie apocalypse? I don't think so. Unless I'm convinced otherwise, I plan to nominate this article for deletion in a few days. Ylee (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a whole category that includes quite a few articles about one time April 1 jokes.This article is not about joke.It is about US government using zombie apocalypse scenario to rise an awareness about disasters to make more people to read their blog and tweet. It is also about Twitter usage.I've already linked to this article from Twitter usage and will link to it from CDC too, and maybe some other places.


 * This article is also about techniques used to increase internet traffic to websites. The subject got a very good coverage by many RS. I will add to the article later today.


 * I believe according to all of the above it has the right to stay. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ali S. Khan
You've referred to Khan through the article variously as 'Rear Admiral' 'Dr.' and 'Doctor', perhaps some consistency should be introduced? Best, Bob House 884 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Khan is 'Rear Admiral' and doctor: 'Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan is the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (PHPR) and a practicing physician.". Do you still believe I should change the article for consistency, or you believe it is OK to leave it as is? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could introduce him as 'Rear Admiral Dr. Ali Khan' or something. It's up to you of course, I just had a slight 'huh?' moment when he was referred to as a Doctor. It's a nice article though, good work. Bob House 884 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I used your advise and added "Dr." to the introduction of Mr. Khan.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Move/rename
I'm WP:BOLDly renaming this article to to Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse, the name of the actual campaign. Describing this ad campaign as an actual "warning about zombie apocalypse" is an absurd fiction that can serve no purpose but to mislead or amuse, neither of which fits with Wikipedia's purpose or goals. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)