Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llama (computer culture) (2 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   Delete. BJ Talk 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Llama (computer culture)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Now, before anyone actually claims there are a ton of reliable sources please read the text of the article and what these sources are actually sourcing. I'm nominating this on the grounds that this is a non-notable topic. 7 months have been given since the previous nomination and nothing has changed. Very clearly read WP:NOTE. This article is nothing more than a giant trivia list of every time a llama appears in relation to something software related. Which even from the list really isn't that much. There are no articles written on the history of llamas in computing, or anything like that on which to base an article. No reliable source has found this topic notable enough to devote coverage to it and doing so on wikipedia violates numerous policies and guidelines including Notability, and WP:NPOV. There isn't a single source out there that would indicate that this topic would meet WP:NOTE and having an article on it places undue weight on the subject. Too much focus is given to the subject. If reliable sources don't give the topic this much focus, it is certainly not wikipedia's place to do so. Editors drawing that conclusion and putting forth that theory are committing original research. Third parties have to draw the conclusions for us. During the previous Afd there were numerous opinions on WP:ILIKEIT extolling what a fantastic article it was. Unfortunately it being a super keen article doesn't give it a pass on WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV or any other policy and guideline on wikipedia. This also violates WP:NEO. There is no coherency to this article. Crossmr (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete basically a collection of times a llama is seen or mentioned in various video games, most of them exceeedingly minor/trivial and not necessarily part of a "culture" at all. With the thousands of video games released in the past 30+ years there's bound to be numerous references to any common animal, and llamas aren't even particularly prevelant even by this flimsy standard: monkeys, horses, dogs, rabbits, cows, spiders (etc etc etc) all appear in video games far more than llamas. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seems to be almost entirely WP:TRIVIA. I'm also amazed that the article was kept during it's last AfD despite the fact that almost every argument to keep the article was purely because they like it. -- .: Alex  :.  15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm often stunned at the amount of weight "ILILKEIT" comments are given at AfD closure.--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki origin of "Llama" to wikidictionary, Trim and Merge rest to Llama article, "In Popular Culture" (most is unnecessary trivia, but Llamasoft and the prevelence of Llamas in SimGames can probably be cited). --M ASEM 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete With regrets, since the article is very well referenced. Alas, the writing is too incoherent to have any impact, let alone prove a point. The illustration of the llama only adds to the confusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — The scope of this AfD discussion needs to be expanded to other areas, such as to computer-related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   —MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Llama for the same rationale Masem explained above. MuZemike (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Clearly list cruft and verging on WP:CB. ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep significant internet and computer memes are notable. WP is the prime reliable reference for this sort of material and, for many of us, established its reputation as an important website on that basis.DGG (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is little evidence that this is a significant internet and computer meme. No reliable source has covered it as such. Taking the meager mentions that are provided and synthesizing that to reach that conclusion without a reliable source doing so is original research. Wikipedia is never a reliable source for anything. That is why we link to reliable sources outside the project to establish the notability and reliability. This article has been given excessive time to shape up and it has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Crossmr is absolutely right. When literally ANYONE can freely edit WP, there is no way that WP itself can be a reliable source for any article within it. Otherwise, I could edit Earth and say it's flat and disprove thousands of articles written here because my claim on here is reliable. MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge out. The examples in the article are unrelated. The use of "llama" as a homonym for "lamer" has nothing to do with the recurrent inside joke at Maxis. These incidents do not point to any sort of actual trend, and as such the article is OR based on a collection of trivia. The constituent parts could be merged out to appropriate contexts, such as Lamer and Maxis or Will Wright. There's no good redirect target for the article name, however. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is more than just a typical 'in popular culture' article. There are long running jokes and easter-eggs involving Llamas in many, many computer products and systems and is the official Mascot of several companies, most notably (as the article points out), Maxis, Nullsoft and Llamasoft. Darksun (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But are there verifiable, third-party sources to establish said notability? MuZemike (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know this is up for deletion. We did this last time and, as is often the case on some AfDs, people make all kinds of spurious claims about notability, verifiability, etc yet don't provide any sources. This was muddled in to a no-consensus last time around. If you have reliable sources which refute the above problems provide them because they do not exist in the article as it is and more than enough time has been provided to allow them to be found.--Crossmr (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes there are sources for notability within Maxis. Yes there are sources for the LLama/Nullsoft connection. The connection between Llama's and Jeff Minter's Llamasoft is pretty self explanatory. I think perhaps the main focus of the article needs to be shifted from the llama/lamer connection, but the Llama is a cult icon within several software developers. Darksun (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no. That is a trivial mention in a much larger article about something else. No reliable source has dedicated coverage to the Llama as a cultural icon in the computer industry. All you've done is further prove my point. If the CNN coverage and some trivial mentions in a BusinessWeek article are what you are going to hang your hat on, there is nothing to serve as the foundation for this article. Neither of those trivial mentions remotely meet WP:NOTE as providing significant coverage to the subject. They're name drops and little more.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that is right. Sources coming from Maxis are not independent of the topic and hence are not verifiable. Please read (or reread) WP:V. The other two articles only establish the fact that the llama is used for Maxis' and Nullsoft's mascot; nothing is mentioned or implied about the llama being a cult icon within the community. MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as incoherent trivia. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Boffob (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a pile of name-drops without coherence or a real tie between them. Nifboy (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Llama —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 July 2008 (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.