Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llama (computer culture)


 * 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. Crossmr makes some good arguments that aren't fully rebutted. There appears to be a rough consensus that there is something here worth preserving, though perhaps not in the current form. Hopefully there will be an editorial consensus on how to better structure the article to avoid a return here.-- Kubigula (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Llama (computer culture)
WP:OR, WP:NEO, etc..etc.. not citations, it reads like a personal essay.Crossmr (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless WP:RS are provided. JJL (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Neologism. Daniel 5127 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as needing sources - I knew the Llama references from the Sim games, found it quite interesting and informative to read where it came from - exactly what I'd expect from an encyclopedia. Definitely needs to add sources. --Arcanios (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's informative? There is no indication that any of that is true or that its even possible to source any of it other than the current trivia.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact its already been marked as needing sources since June. That's 6 months its been sitting without sources since asked, that obviously isn't going to benefit this article.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it has only been marked since after this AFD started (and dated inappropriately).  Rami  R  12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, the reason its being put up for deletion is idea that it reads like a personal essay and seems to be based wholly on original research. Tagging it doesn't address that concern. The article wasn't created yesterday.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact its already been marked as needing sources since June. That's 6 months its been sitting without sources since asked, that obviously isn't going to benefit this article.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it has only been marked since after this AFD started (and dated inappropriately).  Rami  R  12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, the reason its being put up for deletion is idea that it reads like a personal essay and seems to be based wholly on original research. Tagging it doesn't address that concern. The article wasn't created yesterday.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Good Article and notable. Needs ref Pensil (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence of notability. e.g. reliable sources that cover llamas in games. Fansites, forums, blogs, etc. Don't do anything to establish that kind of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Reference like crazy, and trim what cannot be verified< Otherwise it's perfectly legit. Zidel333 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since none of it is referenced, that would make none of it currently legit? You assume references are out there, but its being put up for deletion because its been article this long and none have been provided. Claiming there might be references without actually providing them doesn't exactly make a compelling argument to keep it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will, later tonight; but please remember that There is no deadline OK? Feel free to look for said references on your own. On a side note, you seem to be taking any user's disagreement with this AfD a tad too personally. Chillax. Zidel333 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a debate not a vote. If a user raises an argument I'm free to counter it. Replying to other users in a debate isn't taking it personally. As far as there being no deadline, there is a deadline on this article now. AfD has a duration of 5 days as I've raised policy concern as to why this article shouldn't be here. If people want to keep the article they need to address that policy concern in that amount of time. In fact read the page you cited Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea.. There is no establishment of the basis of the content or its significance. Also see WP:V under burden of proof. if you want the material kept or included you're required to provide the citations for it.--Crossmr (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only part of this that's remotely sourceable is that llama is a synonym for lamer. The bit about WordStar and BBSes is dubious; I date my online activity from that era, but I never heard it until the late 90s when it became a gaming term, and I'd love to see sources for those claims if they exist. The remainder is a listing of loosely-associated topics, sort of a "Llamas in internet culture" trivia listing, and I don't think very much of it is possible to source even if it were explicitly related in some way. There is no connection at all between gaming llamas and the llama book that I can derive. --Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim and stub (and keep): the term is well known and deserves it's own article. However the article indeed lacks sources. I therefor propose that the article be trimmed, leaving just the first 3-4 paragraphs and the first 2-3 paragraphs of the "Appearances and mentions" section, and stub it (as unsourced statements are more tolerable in stubs).  Rami  R  12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is currently up for deletion. If nothing can be sourced appropriately right now simply reducing it to an unsourced stub doesn't exactly address the concerns here. You say the term is well known. But is it only well known to a certain sub-set of the population? e.g. those who grew up playing Maxis games for example. That doesn't mean its well known to the greater population and sources need to be provided to demonstrate that in fact llama's in computer games are a notable topic that's received attention for the general public and the article needs to be rewritten to match what is available in those sources.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets not underestimate the population of those who played maxis games (The Sims is the best-selling pc game of all time with 16 million units sold). Also its not just maxis games (I, for instance, learned of the term from an Unreal Tournament 2004 mod). I admit my suggestion of trimming and stubing does not really address the articles problems, but it does make them more "forgivable".  Rami  R  15:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be the best selling game of all time, but if that's someone's first introduction to Maxis games, they really might not have any idea of the significance of the llama. There were are a lot of silly little things in those games, and the same with TS2. That doesn't mean we should suddenly have a "lobster thermador (computer culture)" article. We can sit here and reminisce about the first time we saw llamas and how many times we saw them and how familiar WE are with them, but that doesn't meet the burden of proof with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR or even WP:NOTE. If llama's in computer culture are really such a notable topic, it should be easy for those who feel this to come up with some sources to denote that. Articles in game magazines, etc. As much as we all really love the in jokes surrounding computers games, the internet, etc they don't get anymore of a pass on the policies and guidelines here than anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the efforts of User:Billgordon1099, the article is now well sourced, and addresses all the concerns raised on this AFD.  Rami  R  18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No it really hasn't. I've tagged over half a dozen statements which constitute original research or are otherwise unverified. At best the sources provided support a List as I mentioned already. They don't support any kind of prose on the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep this article and its like are the very basic core of WP. It's documented well enough. This is the sort of material for which WP is the first and best source, the reference documentation, the reason for the esistence, the part that even the skeptical librarians trust. DGG (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of those sources actually establish this as a notable term or concept. Llama in computer terminology is not the subject of any one article. Just mentioned in passing in a few articles. For editors to draw the conclusion that this is a notable term from a few trivial mentions and their own experience is original research. Someone else has to draw that conclusion for us by writing an entire article about Llama's in computer culture. So no, it hasn't been documented well enough and the uses of Llama vary widely. Without any articles from reliable sources strictly about the term llama and its place in computer culture, we don't give it one. It basically amounts to a giant trivia list about each time a company has used a llama. The sources can't speak to anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Week keep I specifically clicked on Llama to find out what it is with Llamas and Sim City (which I used to play a lot), and thanks to the article Llama (computer culture) I now know the reason. So that is all I can say: keep because I would like to read about it. And apparently, there are also other people who feel the same way. I don't see the Wikipedia guidelines saying that somone must have dedicated an article about a topic before it can have its own article on Wikipedia. / Fred-J 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT. An article being "useful" doesn't make it worthy of being an article here, nor does it give it permission to ignore policies and guidelines. As far as guidelines requiring it does, read WP:NOTE on notability. A subject should have received non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. WP:V requires all content be independently verifiable, which means that a reliable sources need to be provided to show where the facts come from. Currently the only thing that there has been provided a citation amounts to nothing more than trivia which is discouraged and does nothing to support the supposed origins of the term. Also remember that this is a debate and note a vote. I haven't seen a single argument made that addresses the policy and guideline issues with the article. At best the citations provided simply support an article with the name "List of Llamas used in computer related topics".--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that the initial issue of no reliable sources have been corrected since the start of this deletion request. / Fred-J 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Were that true, that'd be great. Any can plainly see there is a host of unverified information and theories put forth, and no notability has been established of the subject itself. While I didn't initially mention notability in the nomination addressing it now would prevent it simply being renominated were it kept for lack of that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed not all the references are "first tier", reliability-wise. However, the majority of the references are, and notability is clearly shown using reliable secondary sources (Winamp mascot, Maxis mascot, "the llama book", published definitions of llama as a gaming/l33t-sp34k term, etc.).  Rami  R  10:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't. Many companies have many mascots. 3 companies having a llama as a mascot doesn't make it a notable topic. There are guidelines for notability which I've provided and unless notability can be established per those, I don't see it there. As far as some references not being "first tier", they are required to be by WP:V. But again, every reference only gives this subject trivial coverage. A passing comment here and there. WP:NOTE was specifically written to address this kind of coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 13 December 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.