Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Taught Me


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Taught Me

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Was previously nominated for AFD under a different name, the Keep vote arguments were largely made without any basis in Wikipedia policy and the closing admin used the AFD summary to get on a soapbox to make his own speech. The basic thrust of things is that this incident does not have the level of multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to demonstrate a reason for its own articles. There are two stories from one local paper, a local news station, and the Washington Post. Local coverage-only sources do not meet our requirements for non-trivial coverage or else we could have Wikipedia articles on pretty much any local news story ever. The Washington Post article seems only to be repeating shallow information taken straight from the local coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There should be a link to the previous AFD. Edison (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Bobby Joe Blythe. *** Crotalus *** 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE Attrocious incident but not appropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a repository of true crime stories. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an old video of a martial arts student beating up a man. Some saw it on Youtube years later and were outraged. The one newspaper story attached as a reference says the injured man was a vagrant who was later seen limping around the area. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. See Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident &mdash; an AFD on an article I created back in February of this year. That incident, also involving a YouTube video of atrocious conduct, made international headlines, but the article was deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. I see no reason why this case would be any different &mdash; there isn't even as much coverage of this as there was of the cat abuse incident. A case could also be made that this article fails the notability criteria for films. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: why renominate 10 days after the AfD was closed? Tim Song (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There's really nothing in this AfD that hasn't already been covered in the previous AfD.  Consensus has already been established to keep this article.  Nominating it again for deletion so soon is an abuse of the Wikipedia process. -- noosph e re 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I was primarily concerned about the significant WP:BLP issues when I nominated it the first time.  I'm still not really sure it's a worthwhile article, but I'll lean a little towards keep for this nomination and see if it can improve with a little more time. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please describe what sources you anticipate using for this article, and what reason you have to believe that it meets the notability guidelines? *** Crotalus *** 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google news appears to be down, or I'd grab links. Mainly the Washington Post article and the ones out of Virginia (NoVa) would be barely enough for a basic article for now (the KMPH one from Hanford/Fresno one is useless, though).  It's probable that the 15 minutes of fame for this thing are up, in which case it might eventually need to be deleted, but I no longer see the need for immediate action.  I would also support a Merge with Internet vigilantism, cutting out most of the article and making a short reference to the incident. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A short mention in Internet vigilantism might be justified if decent news sources can be located. (My brief Google search came up mostly with blogs and other such unreliable mentions.) That's what ultimately happened to YouTube cat abuse incident which is now a sectional redirect to Internet vigilantism. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability. Also, there are potential WP:BLP1E issues here that are worth avoiding. B figura  (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In this case, user:Crotalus horridus has it right on. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Let it be for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.180 (talk • contribs) — 79.118.182.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * OK, why? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is big news in the on line martial arts communittee and is part of a Bullshido.net investigation (link - ) and renweal of interest by the police. As for verifiable source material the video is pretty self explainatory. So regaurdless of the outcome tha issue is something that people will try to get information about. Isnt that what Wikipedia is about? Pendodecahedron (who is having code issues with this page )
 * Oh for christ's sake not Bullshido again. I have had it up to here with those people and their spamming of non-notable, non-verifiable crap. The link you posted is to a FORUM THREAD which is clearly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For your infomation I am not a Bullshido regular. Just in ths case they have done alot of investigative work into something that is of concern to the martial arts communittee at large. The reason I added the link as an 'external link' and NOT referenced it in the article is because I feel it is relavant additional material that concerned martial artists would benefit from knowing. I can inderstand weariness brought about by Bullshido's rather in your face attitude though but just like a stopped clock sometimes they are right. Wikipedia is a gateway to information is it not? Pendodecahedron September 25 2009


 * Keep - DreamGuy, the initiator of this AFD, makes two arguments for the deletion of this article. I will address them in turn below.  DreamGuy's first argument: "The basic thrust of things is that this incident does not have the level of multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to demonstrate a reason for its own articles. There are two stories from one local paper, a local news station, and the Washington Post."  The fact that this is in the Washington Post should be enough (as it's a highly respected, reliable source that fully meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria).  However, though the Wikipedia article only mentions a couple of other sources, there are many more sources that have written about this story: 1 - KMPH (local, Virginia TV station), 2 - Examiner (New York news website), 3 - France24 (international news website), 4 - WUSA9 (local, Virginia TV station), 5 - Washington Post (national paper), 6 - NBC Washington (Washington news website), 7 - Hanford Sentinel (California paper), 8 - Inside NOVA (local, Virginia news site), 9 - NBCi4 (national news website).  So, as you can see, there are many news outlets who have covered this story.  These sources should be added to the Wikipdia article, and the article should be improved, not deleted.  Now, on to DreamGuy's second argument: "The Washington Post article seems only to be repeating shallow information taken straight from the local coverage."  This (if it was true, and it's not -- see below) is completely irrelevant to Wikipdia policies.  Wikipedia policies say nothing about whether a reliable source is simply quoting local sources.  So this argument of DreamGuy's is completely irrelevant to this AfD.  However, his statement of fact in that argument is also false.  The major new contribution by the Washington Post article is that their reporter interviewed Dumfries and Prince William County police officers, and reported their statements.  But, again, whether this was new information or not is irrelevant to the Wikipedia policies and the AfD.  In conclusion, I'd just like to say that this article should be kept as this is an important event with significant, ongoing, national news coverage.  Also, the reliable sources criteria has been met with virtually all of the sources.  That is more than enough to keep this article.  People who have their panties up in a bunch over this article should really go and use their time more productively on the thousands of Wikipedia articles which are completely or largely unsourced.  -- noosph e re 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't seen any significant news story on this thing that wasn't local. The Washington Post article was only in the Virginia Metro section of the website, if you look closely.  It was not national coverage. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - On the basis that this isn't a local coverage only story. Noosphere seems to have provided sufficient references. Blowfish (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This account is very suspicious. Blowfish has not been on WP in months, then suddenly shows up, changes one word in another article, then votes on two Bullshido-related AfD's?  It's very obvious that there is either off-site canvassing or sockpuppetry going on here. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User seems to have a history of not using wikipedia for a period of months at a time, so you may be jumping to conclusions. Can you show a history of this user acting in the manner of a sockpuppet? If not you should retract your statement. As for off-site canvassing, I think that's going to be a unavoidable issue in this instance given the wide coverage of the issue at this point. We can however hope that it will bring new users at wikipedia. --Mista-X (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a sock puppet. I mostly read here, and edit occasionally. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure that I ever voted before yesterday. Blowfish (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The coverage is not enough to make it much more than a news story. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)\
 * KEEP - Issue was solved in previous AFD already. --Mista-X (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has adequate sources. It's generally considered very poor form to nominate an article less than a month after a previous AFD, WP:DRV would have been a more appropriate forum. There was no consensus to delete at the last AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No explanation was provided for such a rapid renomination; if you want to challenge the close of the previous AfD, WP:DRV is that way. Tim Song (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this was an important event that has had sufficient coverage by third party sources. also, per tim song, why was this renominated so quickly again? because someone didn't like the results of the previous keep? are we going to keep renominating every article we want deleted until it's gone? Theserialcomma (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge anything sourced and encyclopedic to Internet vigilantism. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any facet of this article describes vigilantism. (Or at least, it would require a fairly broad definition of vigilantism.) As such, even if a merge were warranted, Internet vigilantism seems like the wrong target. Blowfish (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Insufficient notability beyond being an isolated news item, without any consequences, ramifications or influence. Mukadderat (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing provided by User:noosphere. Another page move may be appropriate, however, because its unclear if the sources covering the incident use the term "Jesus Taught Me." Perhaps the name of the article should be "Jesus Taught Me video", which would minimize the potential self-given name aspect of the article.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:47, 1 October 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.