Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CowboyNeal (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Slashdot. This is more of an editorial decision than anything else. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

CowboyNeal
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The name of the article is CowboyNeal, which refers to an option in opinion polls on Slashdot.com. This is an anecdote, and should probably be moved to a more appropriate location (Slashdot). Jonathan Pater is the really world person behind the CowboyNeal username, for whom the article is a biography. Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to the first AfD discussion comments, there are no WP:RS present, or available in a g-search, to confirm that Jonathan Pater was a co-founder of Slashdot. Even if he were, there would need to be non-trivial coverage of why that is notable enough to merit more than being mentioned in the history section of the Slashdot page. I believe this would fall under the argument for notability not being inherant or inherited. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know all the fancy wiki-speak, so please be patient with me. The references to Pater are just for background info. It is like mentioning Astley on the Rickrolled page. I don't think Pater deserves his own page either, but cowboyneal does. If 35,000 people in one day, and 5.5 million per month are using the term, isn't that notable? Would it be better to call this a stub at least, rather than delete the whole thing?--Dongemus (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just a question to consider, and you don't even have to answer it here on the board, but if Jonathan Pater does "not deserve his own page", why would his username? If it is because it has come into common use on one website, I'm not sure that will meet the guidelines for inclusion. If the term "Cowboy Neal" is being argued as being notable, and not considered to be a Neologism, there would need to be more impact on a broader segment of the web, or popular culture. An example might be Crazy Ivan. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Pater nor his username are notable of Wikipedia. I do, however, think the meme is worthy. At least as worthy as lolcats, dancing hamsters, or ORLY. If Pater being mentioned is a problem then censor him, but i think that would be a detraction. I wonder if prejudice is a factor here? I certainly can't comment on something in Korean culture, because I am ignorant. This is geek culture, and pretty prominent in that culture. As ridiculous as this may sound to say about 'geekdom', I don't think we should be discriminatory of minority subgroup. I have 4 sources so far, and I am going to bed now, but they are from 4 different websites not one of which has Pater as a contributor.--Dongemus (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments: lolcats have had significant coverage in the media. All your base are belong to us was in Time magazine.  CowboyNeal has received no comparable coverage. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. the sources are 1) some sort of a resume/bio service 2) a wiki 3) a wiki-like site (anyone can submit content) and 4) another resume service. Both bio sources appear to just pull data from Myspace, linkin, even Wikipedia. These are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia biography... these sources exist (or could be made to exist in a few minutes) on me and half my friends. They're trivial sources so they don't establish notability. However, this article name is a plausible redirect to the Slashdot page. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Exactly the sort of topic on which we should provide information. People will want to find it, and this is the place. The sources are adequate. DGG (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? I could have an article about you with those sources... considering they are all user-editable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not even remotely have the same internet presence :) . In any case, this is not really a BLP, but an internet meme, and the standards are lower for that than for BLPs. DGG (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless they're still all sources that can be generated or modified by random anonymous users. Sources like that could be made to say anything... they're totally unreliable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Slashdot. This information should be retained, as it helps understand the culture of slashdot users, but I see no necessity for a separate article for it. JulesH (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Raise your hand if you really care that there's a CowboyNeal option in every Slashdot poll. Not notable enough for Wikipedia, and probably could have been taken care of with a Speedy Deletion.--Unionhawk Talk 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification for the record... since this article has already been nominated and kept on the AfD discussion board, it would not seem to be "non controversial," and therefore would not have met the criteria for speedy deletion. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - Dongemus, the creator, has had few contributions outside Slashdot topics.--01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge/Redirect to Slashdot. Nowhere near notable enough for its own article but keeping it somewhere will undoubtedly keep the fanboys happy and provide information for those who seek it. Greggers (t &bull; c) 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Slashdot, echoing Greggers. Yes, he's a notable part of the Slashdot culture, but beyond that of limited interest. (And his interview on Slashdot was a complete disappointment, so I might be biassed on this subject.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is basically just an explanation of a Slashdot inside joke.  None of the sources pass muster as RS.  Likelihood of significant 3rd party coverage, ever, is 0.  This sort of thing is better suited to a Slashdot FAQ or Urban Dictionary.  --Clay Collier (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2009 (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.