Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blosting


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blosting
Article does not assert notability and provides no defining references. Originally prodded, but tag was removed twice, as such, referred to here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kottke's interest in Blosting shows a great deal of internet notability. This is a new web phenomenon-- a recent blost-related photo has already received over 1200 Flickr views--that will undoubtedly grow exponentially and will soon need its own Wikipedia entry. Philelvrum 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Philelvrum is the user who first vandalised Wikipedia by inserting the Chocula story, and has subsequently also vandalised Boo Berry in the same way. He is apparently attempting to abuse Wikipedia to create a new meme. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Soon is not now. Plus this sentence: "The first widely known occurrence of blosting was a 2006 biography of Ernst Choukula on Wikipedia.org" makes the article look like missusing Wikipedia. Sarg 08:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia, I also noticed that wording and have edited accordingly. Considering the speed at which information travels online, "soon" and "now" are quickly becoming interchangeable. A quick Google search for "Ernst Choukula" will show that dozens of online zines and blogs have already covered this breaking subcultural expression.Jonabechtolt 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of them call it Blosting. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NEO, WP:NFT... &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's stupid, and ban creator and Jonabechtolt for vandalism. Danny Lilithborne 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, it does seem like a troll, but folks, please, let's not make this personal. -Harmil 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not personal. People who only intend to manipulate Wikipedia in order to create their own meme have no right to be here. Danny Lilithborne 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. Just because people have covered the vandalism doesn't make it encyclopedic, particularly because the article is trying to make the neologism, not the incident, encyclopedic.  Euphoria 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per all above, and cheers to Euphoria for hitting the nail on the head. -- Kinu t /c  15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Haeleth. —Core des at talk. o.o;; 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. The edits to Count Chocla are still being made (recently things like this).  If anyone wants to add it to their watch list, that may not go amiss.  What is this? Step 1. Vandalize wikipedia, step 2. blog about it, step 3. Claim wikipedia should incorporate your vandalism because it is now notable.  Groan. --TeaDrinker 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You infer from this that one person, or a small collective of people, are solely responsible for steps 1,2 and 3. This is not the case. I discovered the Count Chocula entry through kottke.org and appreciate the interesting problem it poses for Wikipedia. The solution is not to simply delete. To do so violates a number of Wikipedia policies, most notably WP:AGF.--71.106.80.32 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read our policies more carefully before you cite them, please. WP:AGF is a policy for interacting with users, not keeping articles.  I might assume that you are, in good faith, defending the inclusion of non-notable original research on Wikipedia, but that should not deter me in the slightest from having it deleted as quickly as possible. -- SCZenz 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my contention that editors are acting too harshly in the particular instance of the Count Chocula edit, and that the reason for such extreme harshness is a lack of good faith in the users carrying out those edits, myself included. This observation seems to be repeatedly verified by the decidedly pompous assertions that Wikipedia's policies are both unknown and misunderstood by myself and other users attempting to document a light-hearted and inconsequential (yet verifiable) event in the history of Chocula.--71.106.80.32 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Complete and total rubbish. This IP should be banned.  Okay, while that was very harsh, good faith cannot be assumed since your intent to vandalize Wikipedia to make a point is clear.  That is why you're getting a lot of bad blood.  But as long as you keep your nonsense within talk pages, there's no reason to ban you. *sigh* Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vandalizing Wikipedia and making up a new word to describe it does not an article make. -- SCZenz 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme predjudice as WP:NEO and an attempt to hijack Wikipedia for his own gain. --DarkAudit 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete so a vandal created an article about his own vandalism in an attempt to create a new term for vandalism? I really don't think behavior like that should be rewarded with an article. IrishGuy talk 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You people are being really harsh, and unreasonable. Whether Philelvrum and Jonabechtolt created the meme or not, it is something that is being moderately (significantly) reported. There is a Wikipedia entry for Vandalism. There is a Wikipedia entry for Vandalism. Mention of Blosting, the attempted neologism and its coverage by various blogs does not constitute "rewarding" the users with an article.--71.106.80.32 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The specific vandalism incident is non-notable, even if it was mentioned offhand in several blogs. However, the term is clearly original research.  A search for "blosting" google gives 335 results, mostly typos.  The fact that somebody is trying to make a neologism out of abusing our website annoys the heck out of me, but the reason we're deleting the article is that it violates about a half-dozen of our policies for the inclusion of articles. -- SCZenz 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you stating that the original "vandalism" of Count Chocula is non-notable, or this specific article? I understand your reservations about adding an article specifically devoted to Blosting (it seems premature), but I do believe the so-called "blost" of Chocula is significant--or at least as significant as the other events in the Cultural References category. The inclusion of information about the Chocula "blost" in this area of the Chocula page is fully in line with Wikipedia's policies regarding editing of and addition to existing articles.--71.106.80.32 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No reference to the vandalism of the Count Chocula article should appear in that article. The article is for facts about the cereal, not for facts about the article on the cereal.  This is per Avoid self-references.  Please read our policies more carefully; I must assume (in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary) that your incorrect assertions about them are made in error and not out of malice. -- SCZenz 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read Avoid self-references and am very familiar with it. I believe you are misinterpreting, and am willing to concede it is without malicious intent. The WP:ASR refers specifically to references such as "According to this Wikipedia article" (which the Chocula reference is not), and goes on to make clear that, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia...If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content." The information about Chocula's edit as verified by aforementioned sources should be included with external links in either Cultural Refs or External Links section of Count Chocula.--71.106.80.32 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, nope. ASR may not explicitly spell out the obvious fact that Count Chocula is not an article about edits to the article, but it is unquestionably a blatant self-reference for us to clog articles with facts about previous edits to the article itself.  It is against the fundamental fact that we're writing an encyclopedia, not promoting ourselves; just the words "avoid self-references" themselves make this clear.  (If the vandalism of the specific page somehow magically became notable, there would be an article on that on a separate page&mdash;but I don't think that could ever happen.)  Further discussion of this should be in the talk page of the Count Chocula article, although I doubt there's much point. -- SCZenz 21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "vandalism" of Count Chocula has become notable, not by "magic" but through kottke.org, et al. Further discussion of this particular aspect of the "blosting" controversy will be taken up on Talk:Count Chocula.--71.106.80.32 21:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Something reported, and verified to have been done twice, is something made up after school. BJAODN and all that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 21 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.