Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest


 * 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 Keep. -- VS talk 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Most Phallic Building contest

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod removed by author. I tried to clean this up a few months ago, but no notability has been established. It was a one-off contest by a quasi-notable magazine; notability is not inherited. As far as the references listed go, the first is a dead link, the second and third are blogs, the fourth is someone's personal website, the fifth is not free and the sixth is to the magazine itself, which can't be used to establish notability. If anything, this should be a redirect to Cabinet (magazine) faithless   (speak)  08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Delete or Merge although "the brick dick" is pretty funny, this doesn't seem very notable on it's own Beeblbrox (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Cabinet (magazine). No notability as an award. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Some editing has been done to the article, so the order of the references as described in the nomination is now different. The first link (Kansas City Star) has been fixed, but it goes to a non-free article. Two sources have been added, both of which mention the contest only briefly. faithless   (speak)  08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- who is this beeblbrox guy without a user name? Does he have a say?  why?JJJ999 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would he have any less right to his opinion than you do? V-train (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Captain Impartial, as you've doubtless been seen arguing in other pages, wikirules are supposed to give less weight to non-users. This guys doesn't really have a profile as far as I can see, he may as well be a random IP, nor does he offer any reasons.  the guy smacks of the sort of vote you ignore, or weight less, he comes on after a few months, posts a series on one liner "delete"s in a swath of votes, and disappears for a few months again.JJJ999 (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * comment well, thanks a lot for the personal attack, I appreciate the attention. I have a user name, as you can plainly see. The reason I don't have a profile page is because I don't care about having a profile page. I've been reading Wikipedia for a long time and started getting involved in these debates because there is too much irrelevant content on Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. Again, thanks for belittling me, it's folks like you that scare off inexperienced users...Beeblbrox (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you might not be here in Good faith, but there is a reason other people cite these rules when it suits them. I don't know who you are, except that you come on every few months, post one liners on a bunch of AfDs, then go again.  This is very frustrating, especially when the sourcing of an article changes over time, as this one has.  It gives the impression you're not even following what's happening, and frankly I have to wonder with your record for posting how you even came to notice this remark.  Half your (small number of edits) are for AfDs, what am I supposed to think?  Certainly not of someone who is unfamiliar with wikipediaJJJ999 (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep the sources aren't great (mainly blog posts and the like), but they're not too bad given the topic so I think that this just scrapes past WP:N. If it's deleted the title could be added to WP:FREAKY and if it survives it should definetly be listed at WP:ODD. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually I removed the prod, and I'm not the author - I'd never heard of this before I came across the article with a prod tag on it. There's nothing that says that sources need to be available online, or without paying. Anyway I've fixed the Kansas City Star link, and you can check the Esquire reference at any decent library in the English-speaking world. I've also added references from the Los Angeles Times, The Age and a book published by a major publisher of works on architecture. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was incorrect; you made this edit? I assumed it was the author of the article as 1. the IP has edited the same articles as JJJ999 and 2. the edit summary appears to be signed. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what happened now. It seems that I forgot to actually remove the prod tag, even though I had stated that that was my intention, but some IP user came along afterwards and removed it anyway with that strange edit summary. That wasn't me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep/Redirect Some mild notability is established, but I think we'd be better off moving most of the contents to the magazine's article Corpx (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Bad Faith- the coincidence of this occuring 1 day after I had one of faithless pages deleted cannot be ignored, and likewise I feel a contest which is published and held by prestigious magazines like Slate is clearly notable. No evidence of a persuasive sort to the contrary.JJJ999 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment First, no one "owns" any article on Wikipedia. Second, I don't care that that article was deleted. You might remember that I didn't even argue against its deletion. Please be a little more careful when accusing others of bad faith - you've had trouble with this in the past. faithless   (speak)  11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * dude, I haven't claimed anyone "owns" anything on wikipedia, given the speed of your reply (under 3 mins!?) it sounds like you rehearsed your speech in advance without even reading what I said. If people here choose to believe it is pure coincidence that you AfD'd the page I created only 1 day after your authored page was deleted, that's up to them.  I merely suggest occam's razor poses to me an alternative spin.  Your own rational for the nomination isn't even sound!  You claim you suggested improvements, and no edits were made, which the above comments show is false.  This nom should be cut down for sheer silliness.JJJ999 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote a four sentence (hardly a "speech") response - what about that suggests it was "rehearsed?" So when you wrote, "...I had one of faithless pages deleted..." you weren't suggesting ownership? My rationale is quite sound - this contest isn't notable. The sources cited pretty much fit into one of two categories: unreliable blogs or passing mentions. Cabinet (magazine) is of borderline notability at best; a one-off contest held by the magazine doesn't come close to being notable. Furthermore, I did not, "...claim [I] suggested improvements, and no edits were made..." I said I cleaned up the article, and notability has not been established. Please don't twist my words. faithless   (speak)  12:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You couldn't even get the references right! And you fail to note it was covered in other magazines like Slate... not that Cabinent isn't notable either. You haven't done anything to alter the previous consensus it was notable.  I don't know what the numbers on Cabinent are off hand, but the other magazine it was covered in, with the back and forth, Slate magazine, has Annual Revenue: $3.9 billion USD · Employees: 14,800.  Yeh, borderline notable... pfft, and the contest is available on numerous 3rd party sites, not just "blogs", even a simple google search could demonstrate this.  End of argument.JJJ999 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? What do you mean I couldn't get the references right? I assume you mean that after I nominated the article, Phil Bridger added more references, which made my earlier statements no longer valid, as the number and order of sources was different. Was it covered in Slate? Funny, it isn't one of the sources. And I'm sorry, what earlier consensus? faithless   (speak)  12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly it's bad faith in my humble opinion, because a) it comes 1 day after your article went, b) you have made no substantive improvements or added anything to the discussion page, and c) you have misrepresented the notability. The "Blog" of a famous author for example is not without notability, no more than Christopher Hitchens or Noam Chomsky's websites or blogs are to be treated like some kids site.  Jonathan Ames for example is one of the "mere blogs" you cite.  Given he is notable enough to have his own wiki page, I suggest that is a source right there.  There are also numerous other sources, and it was certainly in an article in Slate magazine I saw, though I'm not going to go look for it now, assuming it's online.  Sure, this could be good faith, I just look at the above factors and am extremely skeptical.  you have additionally gone deliberately to the talk page of numerous people asking for them to come vote here, under the pretext of "informing those who have edited it", though given several of them are friends of yours I am pretty skeptical of your motives again.  I am glad the first one to reply has gone against you.JJJ999 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I informed everyone who edited the article that it was nominated, so don't accuse me of canvassing (and for the record, the first to reply argued to delete it). Second, again, it wasn't "my" article, just as this isn't "your" article, so stop referring to them that way. Third, again, I didn't even argue to keep that other article! I don't see how I can make it any clearer than that. I showed you where I said back in October that the article ought to be deleted, so stop trying to paint this as bad faith. I don't care that that article was deleted, nor did I try to prevent its deletion. Fourth, I misrepresented nothing; a blog is a blog. All I said was that it was a blog...where is the misrepresentation? Fifth, sorry, but we can't take your word for it; "it was certainly in an article in Slate magazine I saw, though I'm not going to go look for it now." It doesn't work that way. Sixth, "friends of mine?!" I have only ever come across one of them before, so please stop with the bad faith accusations already. faithless   (speak)  12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. JJJ, if you want to make allegations of bad faith then this is not the place to do it. I agree with you that this should be kept, but the way to get that done is not to make personal attacks on the AfD nominator. The article was very weakly referenced when it was nominated so it was completely valid to bring it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done with him anyway... but not only was it in Slate, and I will find it sometime, but one of the current footnotes is from Esquire magazine, an even bigger publication than Slate.JJJ999 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like it with the sources. Add it to WP:UNUSUAL.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to meet WP:Notability.--Appraiser (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Phil Bridger has done an admirable job in trying to fix up the article by providing sources. However, none of the sources go very far in establishing notability. The Los Angeles Times, for example, is a review of a book by Ames which mentions the contest only in passing. The same is true of the High Society book and the Esquire article. The sources from Ames's blog and Cabinet magazine are not independent of the subject, and therefore can't be used to establish notability. Certainly the best source in the article would be from the Kansas City Star; if there were more like this, the article would be fine. But one good source along with several passing mentions and blog posts isn't enough to establish notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." faithless   (speak)  10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * firstly, both the sources you list as "not independent of the subject" are notable, making it fairly mute. As though a NY Times journalists blog, discussing a scandal at the NT Times, and subsequently printed in the Times itself, would somehow lose credibility as a source.  Secondly, your arguments are totally disingenous, because Phil demonstrated before you nominated this the ease of improving it with sources.  The argument of "well, maybe there are more sources, but I don't think the 9 refs at present are good enough" is self defeating.  You should have argued for this on the talk page, or added a tag on referencing, which in turn would have led to people like Phil adding sources.  You never were serious about this process, you just nominated it for an AfD, and given it was 1 day after I had your article deleted, I think we can all speculate why.  Pardon me if I don't take your complaints seriously.JJJ999 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting that you aren't interested in participating in a constructive discussion, and going on to insult me yet again. First, tags have been placed on the article, and they've done no good. Second, I don't think you understand my point; the Ames and Cabinet articles are fine as sources to verify information in the article, but they can't be used to establish notability because, as I said above, they are not independent of the subject. I don't know how to break that down any further for you. Third, you've repeatedly accused me of bad faith, here and elsewhere, while never explaining yourself (never mind that doing so breaks one of our most important guidelines). Such comments can be construed as personal attacks, so I would strongly suggest you think twice about making such unfounded accusations in the future. faithless   (speak)  07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You added tags, and what happened? People improved it.  What should your next step have been if you were not satisfied with the improvements?  Go to the talk page, or re-tag it, specifying exactly why it was inadequete.  You have not made serious attempts to improve the article, and you have made no attempts to create a discussion on the talk page.  You are apparently not serious about improving it, so why should we be serious about your questionable criticisms?


 * Add-on- also, on checking it doesn't appear you added any tags anyway, and your buddy V-Train only added tags declaring it "orphaned", and when this was remedied his response was a combination of trying to track the pages which it now linked to, and argue why it shouldn't be mentioned, and to re-tag it/shift standards for an orphaned article. The good thing to come out of this AfD is it will now be mentioned in another couple of pages, bringing the total to about 15 or so. JJJ999 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but faithless is not my buddy, I don't know the guy. Secondly, I didn't add the orphan tag.  It was added (rightfully) by another user, and you removed it for no reason even though the article WAS orphaned at the time.  All I did was revert your edit.  You removed it again, and someone else re-added it.  The tag ended up doing exactly what it is supposed to: it spurred improvement of the article to make the tag unnecessary.  You act like tags are some kind of scarlet letter when their purpose is to make Wikipedia better.  I would ask you assume good faith, but you've shown that to be a waste of time.  V-train (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you personally knew the guy, you post an awful lot with him though...JJJ999 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

** MOVE TO KEEP- this has had the 5 days and more, and there is a clear consensus to keep, particularly from the independent users. By independent, I mean people who were not called to come here, or "notified", or discussed it with faithless at some point during this AfD. At the very least, with 10-6 in favour of keeping, and the disagreement being largely subjective views on notability, this would easily get no consensus, if one were charitable to the delete side. In such a case where it's based on personal views of notability, the article should get the benefit of the doubt anyway, especially when it's been improved at each stage of criticism.JJJ999 (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Perhaps a brief mention or merge to Cabinet (magazine). -RiverHockey (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- It does seem to have substantial coverage in reliable sources (KC Star, LA Times, Esquire, 1 book).  Altairisfar talk  04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was brought to my attention on my talk page that Most Phallic building was deleted back in September, apparently speedily, since no AfD exists for it. However, the current article is substantially different, so this really shouldn't affect the outcome of this AfD. Just an FYI to whoever closes this. faithless   (speak)  05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was brought to my attention by another poster the irony of a user called "Faithless" making accusations of good faith, especially in these circumstances. Not that it's relevant, I just thought I'd throw it out there FYIJJJ999 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete One off contest in minor magazine with incidental coverage. Non-notable. It's now linked to many wikipedia articles (e.g. 1890 in art, Phallus, 1890 in architecture, List of architecture prizes) resulting in undue weight to what is nothing more than a one-off joke award, hardly an "architecture prize", as jjj999 would have us believe. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable per nom and Pete Hurd. Also, the LA Times ref is about Ames' book, not this contest.  Other than possibly the KC Star (we don't know for sure since the article is archived), I fail to see significant coverage in independent sources as WP:N requires.  V-train (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment on above friends of Faithless - The above is simply untrue, nor is the "number of articles it links to" a factor for deletion last time I checked. It has independent noteable coverage, and at each point it's been challenged, there have been more sources added to back it up.  This should be kept and wikipedians should be allowed to continue their efforts to improve it in good faith, something you have shown no interest in.  For no apparent reason but FYI, I decided to link this here too (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pete.Hurd&diff=prev&oldid=188327463), man, could you be any more hungry to get rid of this?  V-Train, don't you have some other pages I've authored or edited to attack as usual?JJJ999 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep : as per Altairisfar. Europe22 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - has indep sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. (after edit conflict) Faithless notified you and me about this discussion, so by your logic we are not independent and our contributions should be discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) People not notified by Faithless which also excluded you or I would be an embarassing 7-1 in favour of keep I believe.  7-2 if I count Beelbrox, who I'm not convinced has read any of the discussion here in depth, or followed the edits, as this shows http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080128092719&target=Beeblbrox he made 4 votes on AfD in 21 minutes, and that seems to be his pattern.  I am incredibly skeptical he read this in depth, especially going through all the sources in the 9 minutes before his previous vote.  His subsequent vote took a grand total of 3 minutes.  could he be reading, then coming back to vote later?  Sure, I just find it incredibly unlikely.  2)  I don't see why I should discount people who made positive attempts to improve the article, I can't say that of people like P.Hurd, vegas or Faithless, I can say that of you and I.JJJ999 (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And so, I'm that one in favor of delete, right? My opinion was in no way canvassed, and this idea that !voters, wikipedians in good standing, should not be "counted" runs completely against the idea of AfD. This is not a vote, this is not simply a tally of people's positions. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * comment, again I wasn't aware that I had to convince every other participant in an AfD debate that I had the right to have an opinion. Thanks, MrJJJ999, fot taking time out of your busy day to once again single me out and show me the error of my ways. These debates are about the article, not the people involved. As such a wise and experienced Wikipedian, you were doubtless already aware of that though. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Beelbrox, I already explained what I thought. You spent 9 minutes between your last AfD and this one, and alot less on some of them.  Did you really go through the sources and comments carefully in that time?  This sort of glance voting with flippant comments when an article is undergoing major changes is frustrating, especially absent reasons.  That is allJJJ999 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * whatever The point is that this is a debate about whether the subject of this article is notable, and here we are arguing about the merits of the way I participate in AfD discussions. If you are really that concerned, drop me a line at my talk page, but leave it out of the AfD debate.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted above, you don't use your talk page. Something odd is going on here.JJJ999 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to wannabe_kate, he's got over 150 edits, and over half of his edits are to mainspace. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy requiring someone to edit their userpage, (though WP:USER recommends redirecting it to your Talk page if you choose not to have one). -- RoninBK T C 17:19, 4 February 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.