Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft vole

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft vole
POV from an ONLINE news outlet. Does not belong to Wikipedia. And what is that talk page about?? Delete. Feydey 20:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this stupid, non-notable agitprop phrase. Gosh, I hate the Inquirer. Gazpacho 20:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A mention in the Inquirer article is fine (and I can guess without looking that there already is one), but the phrase is no more appropriate for an article than "Micro$oft."
 * Keep. Anything anti-Microsoft is inherently notable . Delete.  Not verifiable, neologism, dicdef, and other wise unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 23:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the Inquirer's own glossary has only "Vole" anyway. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, nonce term. The Talk page seems to be a copyvio, too, since the people on the email don't seem to have released it to the GFDL or to fair use.  RickK 00:01, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neologism? It is neither meaningless as it is referenced all over Google. It also has been a term that's been in use since at least 2001 well before many other Wikipedia entries (e.g. podcasting ). Yes it does seem to revolve around usage at the Inquirer, but so what? Even if you do 'hate the Inquirer' that should not preclude it from being a valid entry. I think entries are valid if the usage of the word is widespread enough ( search Google and see ) and it does not exist in Wikipedia. The sceanario was that an Inquirer article came up on Google News where i read it and then couldn't find ANY kind of explanation ( even if it was to say that there was NO definitive an explanation ). One of the first places I tried was wikipedia. Currently if someone else conducts this same search they will come across this entry and at least had some knowledge of what the word mean't and the possible reasons( When i first read the article I didn't even know that Vole=Microsoft! ). If this entry is deleted then someone will either give up or waste a lot of time trying to find out ( as I did ). Even if a term is disparaging the term itself should be included if it's in use ( e.g. fairy a male homosexual ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fairy&x=0&y=0 )). The article is not POV in the sense that it is reporting a usage and not condoning it or promoting it. Note that the explanation of the term was in quotes and was said to be from a Message Board so it is not speaking with 'The Authority of Wikipedia'. Also if this is a nonce term then why has it been used since 2001 that's getting on for four years! Additionally it's all very well to say that the word is used on special occasions ( yes i went to M-W to figure out what nonce mean't! )but it is everywhere on Google and even if a lot of the links are to Inquirer a lot are NOT - the word seems to have been picked up by other writers. Also who cares if it is a special occasion surely that should not preclude it from an entry. I guess i feel quite strongly about this because there i was, a user on the Internet - i came across a term and i COULDN'T find out what it mean't. My entry into wikipedia was to increase everybody's knowledge ( and not to Bash Microsoft ). As for 'copyvio' on talk page - i could instead paraphrase or get permissions - it is not a show stopper - however i do think it would be nice for people to get some discussion on etymology. :->
 * Above edit by 204.110.116.1 --Carnildo 19:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: Assume somebody described someone with a long neck and called her "giraffe". Now assume you didn't know what it meant. You go to the Wikipedia article about giraffe and read "Giraffes are famous for their long necks." Voilà! Same with vole. The article already says "Unlike most rodents, voles' teeth grow continuously." If you feel this is not enough, just expand this statement so it sufficiently explains why people use "vole" in the meaning you quote. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC) (PS: Please don't go ahead and create an article giraffe (insult) now.)  ;-)


 * OK I take it that the article is no longer being considered for deletion? I hope so! We have two outstanding issues of contention if the article is kept then.

1.) The quote that shows why the term was used.

(oh bugger - just read Sebastian said to go ahead and explain why people use vole - BEFORE i wrote all this !!! Sorry. I will leave it in anyway since it is a clarification of my view even if it may be redundant now! Although having said that i think that it's not the Vole article that needs to be updated it should be this article since we are highlighting this key feature of the Vole as it relates to the nickname (see below))


 * I understand that we are trying to reach a point where the article is still illuminating but is not gratuitously negative to Microsoft since wikipedia needs to protect it's neutral nature and not be seen as being hijaked by Anti-Microsoft 'crusaders'. You are trying to protect wikipedia's integrity and that is the right thing to do. I think that the use of the giraffe to illustrate the point is fair as far as *that* animal and *that* explanation goes and also the *key point* that the girl is described with a long neck to start with. However i wasn't looking into the nickname of Vole thinking to myself that "...this is being used to describe a voracious corporation that devours everything continuously now let's look up what vole means". I guess if i was thinking that then i would may have understood the possible reason for vole as nickname without it needing to be illustrated. Also I'm not sure that voles are famous for having teeth that continuously grow and if they are famous for it I certainly had no idea and neither does *everyone* else. So now it's a matter of what we leave out without assuming knowledge on the part of the person reading ( assumption of knowledge especially where that assumption is not declared is extremley frustrating for people seeking knowledge ). I think that the issue revolves around highlighting the nature of teeth and the key to the metaphor: the requirement to eat continously ( whether that is true or not ). That is the key i think: the need to eat continously. So i think perhaps the bone of contention that is left that maybe considered gratuitous ( even though it is in quotes! ) is: "...Microsoft can only survive by acquiring/stifling the competition." I have no objection to removing this and merely paraphrasing the quote and removing the quotation marks.

2.) The potential copyviolation.
 * I am currently attempting to aquire permissions to use the text on the discussion page.

204.110.116.1


 * Update on Item 2.)
 * OK i misjudged this one - to my suprise the provider of the quote has wished for it to be retracted from this page for fear of 'unwanted attention from Microsoft'. - I am removing the complete thread, since i do not want anyone else to be subject to similar fear.

204.110.116.1
 * I sympathize with you. Please don't let this discourage you from speaking up! This is a lame excuse from the provider! For all i know, the First Amendment has not been abolished yet. It's our all duty to keep it alive by sound practice. I see this sort of spineless appeal to fear as a reason for much evil in our society, and i deeply hope that it will soon go out of fashion. (To avoid misunderstandings: I still uphold my vote for "delete"; but only because we have good reasons, not because we are intimidated.) Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

keep, its a standard phrase coined by theinquirer.net (a well read IT news site), in the same vein as chipzilla and graphzilla (Intel and NVidia). I am quite sure that the publisher of theinquirer.net would be "tickled pink" to see this on wikipedia.
 * Delete, it hard to tell what's going on here, but editorial/unverifiable content is not suitable for an encyclopedia--nixie 04:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, unverifiable, unenyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Response:

Please can someone explain the meaning of unverifiable here. If it relates to what is the truth behind the REASON for the application of the term then I would agree that is not verfiable. What is verifiable, however, is that the term IS used to reference Microsoft. It is verifiable that the term did turn up in what i consider to be a mainstream news outlet ( google news ) and i can verify (->) that i was completley clueless for quite a while as to what the term was even referring to. I think even on that point alone the term deserves inclusion in wikipedia, whose purpose is, I believe, to provide non biased ( as far as possible ) knowledge. I did not coin the phrase I came across it - i had no knowledge - i went to wikipedia to seek knowledge - it was not there and that was when i decided to pin down this term as far as possible, create a wikipedia article and help others like myself. As for the reason the term was applied, I feel that to level verifiability at etymology would be unfair as a reasoned speculation can be more helpful than none at all. Where would we be without the idea of putting forward a theory? There are lots of facts in this world that are without a verifiable explanation but there are theories to explain these facts and these theories are usually included when discussing the facts.

As for neologism please see my previous comments ( above ) regarding the application of neologism to this article.

As for unenyclopedic can someone explain which definition we are using. I just went to www.m-w.com and looked up encyclopedia. It says:
 * encyclopedia: "...a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." - ok well under this definition I cannot see that this entry qualifies as unenyclopedic any more than many other 'approved' wikipedia articles.

I am trying to address each point as they are put forward - i can see that another one was editorial. Again i will have to use www.m-w.com to discover the definition ( rather than just the vauge idea that i have ;-> ).


 * editorial:"a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers." I think this has been an issue since the term seems to have originated with The Inquirer. I think the key point here is *opinion*. It is not The Inquirer's opinion that Microsoft is 'The Vole' it is simply a fact that they nicknamed them that. If i say I am going to call IBM 'Diggy Diggy Dog' that is not really my opinion it is a fact. If I say that IBM ARE Diggy Diggy Dogs that is my ( nonsensical ) opinion. I don't think we can really say that the Inquirer is of the opinion that Microsoft is a vole, it is merely their nickname for them and as such it is a fact. So although it may seem editorial at first glance I don't think that applying editorial to the entry is applicable here.

204.110.116.1


 * Delete. Neologism, non-encyclopedic, non-notable, non-interesting. Zzzzz.  Quale 05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons given by Quale. I don't know that the Inquirer's Jargon File is as notable as the Jargon File. --Idont Havaname 02:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not mention this nickname somewhere near the bottom of the Microsoft article in some sort of errata section? The fact that MS is in one of those positions of disputed alliance (People love MS, other people really hate it.) would seem to be of encyclopedic value to address, in and of itself. Perhaps rather than simply deleting the entry, have it redirect to Microsoft's errata area. --JD 09:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are so many names people call Micro-soft, that if we did so, the list of names would overwhelm the rest of the Micro$oft article. --Carnildo 23:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If somebody thinks this is a neologism, it is probably stealth/fiction from the author.  We could BJAODN it. --SuperDude 05:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair | Talk 05:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.