Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google tv


 * 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 to delete the page, defaulting to keep. It is very likely that this would survive a new listing anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Google tv

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonsense; nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Technostalgia 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep per User:Canley's note, but fer cryin' out loud, clean up that article and make it more presentable! --Dennisthe2 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete looks even the blog on the you-tube supports it's hoax status. Jeepday 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC) change vote to Keep per User:Canley's note.  Good job on putting it together :) Jeepday 03:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete or rework to CLEARLY state that it is a hoax and that this article is only for preserving the fact that it became somewhat of a phenomenon on the web. Perhaps move to a list of Internet fads? --LoganK 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as utterly A7. This isn't even an internet phenomenon, it's only been uploaded a day ago. That said, pretty subtle, and I hope not too many people bork their iTunes because of him. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Obvious hoax, patent nonsense.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, hoax and nonsense. Terence Ong 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont delete this isnt a hoax. Try it if you dont belive me. I spent all day Friday trying it out and I just now got it going. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.119.201 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, this appears to be a hoax, but -- and I am new to editing wikipedia -- but it appears the deletion standards make room for articles "about" hoaxes, such as this one, whereas it not permit articles that are in and of themselves hoaxes. Here is the language from one of the diagrams: "Article is a hoax (not an article about a hoax)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.107.250.200 (talk • contribs).
 * If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax. As of yet (January 29, barely three days after the video was first uploaded) there hasn't been that sort of coverage that would allow us to write an authoritative article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

all i know is, if this article had been deleted, i would still be trying to get google tv. please keep it up.
 * Delete apparent hoax.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a speedy delete, as it is not patent nonsense, but it is a delete for lack of verifiability. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if there's nothing verifiable on there, then I have the same comments as above. Of course, there's nothing wrong merging some of the info into a page regarding hoaxes or Google, etc.  CoolGuy 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as probably hoax. Also fails WP:V.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete... This article is about a hoax, therefore the very nature of it is unverifiable. As long as it has that disclaimer, why shouldn't it stay?--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is the very nature of a hoax unverifiable? A hoax is simply a hoax and thus known to be false--otherwise it would not be a hoax.--LoganK 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep i just added 3 references so it might be verifible and notable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs)
 * Keep the above refs obviously carry weight and if this afd is to process it should be relisted. great save. frummer 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm still waffling, and the article may be a keeper now, but can somebody check the reliability of the sources added? --Dennisthe2 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm satisfied from the references (several reliable tech commentary sites) that this is a notable hoax, and I agree the AFD should be relisted on that basis, with the article rewritten to clarify that it's a hoax. --Canley 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep But make clear that this is a hoax (and quite a notable one). ShawshankRedemption 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite Google Video is a hoax by a production company called Fatal Farm; you can see them credited in the end titles of the Infinite Solutions videos, and they are also circulating a series of hoax TV ads and recut television show intros. Rewriting the article to be about Fatal Farm would cover the hoax unambiguously as well as being a more general topic of broader interest. --Stlemur 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, I'd say merge and redirect, but there doesn't seem to be much to merge to at this time. Still, my !vote above stands. --Dennisthe2 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wake Up
"If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax." Why should an electronic public encyclopedia use foolish standards of inclusion, when there's no limitation of print, pages, or storage? The notion of a useful standard of "notability" is an idiotic enterprise, on the part of wiki policy. ALL MANNERS OF MINUTIAE are "notable" for somebody somewhere who has cause to find information that particular thing, at some point in time. The Infinite Solutions video exists in the world. Secondly, people have already taken the cell-phone/network video seriously. If anybody wanted to understand whether the videos were "real" or "fake" a wiki would obviously help. To assert that the hoax isn't "notable" because there's no big-media mention, and therefore that it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, is nothing more than snobbish ignorance. (By the way, the suggestion that NY Times coverage somehow inherently lends "authoritative"ness to any issue or topic, or set of facts, is extremely naive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.132.160 (talk • contribs)
 * If you think our standards of notability are "foolish", as you so put it, then please also note that we have a very firm statement on what we are - and equally important, what we are not. Before you declare what Wikipedia is for, please note that it is more important to note that Wikipedia has its own statements on what Wikipedia is, and it will stand by that.  --Dennisthe2 22:41, 2 February 2007 (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.