Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutrality Schmeutrality


 * 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. Closed early per the snowball clause. This article is trolling, and ultimately disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. Deletion also resolves any conflict of interest, since the author of xkcd545.com notes that "If the Wikipedia article gets deleted, null doesn't pay". Regardless of that clause, however, we should not fall into the ridiculous trap that our actions necessarily constitute a conflict of interest on the matter. This is a scenario constructed specifically to disrupt the system and shouldn't be lent credence even if we love xkcd. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Schmeutrality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As much as I am an inclusionist and as much as I love xkcd, I do not think we need an entry about every logical concept Randall Munroe makes up in his webcomic. Note: I tagged it for prod but it was contested. It was previously speedy deleted but it fails all criteria in its current state (I declined the latest speedy myself). Regards  So Why  10:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It fails to satisfy the notability criteria. There is not yet any coverage of this concept in any independent source. --Farzaneh (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of independent sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to xkcd -- redirects are cheap. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - redirects are cheap. But I think to avoid further recreations we need to let this AFD run and redirect it as consensus, so future recreations can be handled by it. Doesn't hurt to have it for five days anyway.  So Why  12:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirect even though I'm still - not sure I see the point of a redirect. It's a one-off neologism and the title of a web comic. If you have the phrase in your head, it's because you've already been to the one source (the comic) or you're headed there because somebody told you to check it out. No need whatsoever for treatment in an encyclopedia. J L G 4 1 0 4  11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, probably some people will hear the phrase and then forget exactly where they heard it and search trying to figure out where it came from. As a casual follower of xkcd, I have a hard time remembering that combination of letters, but I would remember a phrase like "Neutrality Schmeutrality".  For that matter, people might come up with the phrase "Neutrality Schmeutrality" independently, as a snowclone, and then find out xkcd did it first, in which case they've learned something new.  Bottom line, redirects are cheap.  Baileypalblue (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I buy the point that redirects are cheap, and I have changed my recommendation accordingly. I still don't see a need for it though. A simple Google search will turn up plenty. J L G 4 1 0 4  13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect - It is now a part of the main XKCD article. Mmmeee0 (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why should that be the name of a 'concept' or the like? The use of schm as a prefix is very common and usually not to be taken very seriously. I also don't think we need a redirect for the title of a certain comic. Rror (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- due to a lack of secondary sources. - Longhair\talk 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Zero words is even, and even should win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.59.52 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminder of neutrality of Wikipedia, which is kinda funny based on what the subject is. Mmmeee0 (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although this comic is full of win, reluctant redirect per obvious notability reasons. Bsimmons666  (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and not worth a redirect. Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect If we keep this, we'll have an endless flamewar of people adding words. Also, unless this comic is actually mentioned anywhere verifiable, it fails notability and should point to xkcd. Yellowweasel (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Delete and salt as per Chris Cunningham. Yellowweasel (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Honestly, I think xkcd's comics are funny enough by themselves and cannot be improved by being 'made real' on Wikipedia. He's probably rolling his eyes at us right now.  Even beside all the points made by other people here, which are valid in and of themselves, I think this page should be deleted because it doesn't really contribute anything to xkcd either.  However a redirect would be probably just as good since I think interest in this page will die down in a day or so anyway.  Soap Talk/Contributions 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect If we redirect, though, we create a little paradox ourselves because by removing the content and simply redirecting to the part of the xkcd article called "Activities inspired by xkcd" then the page is no longer such an activity and doesn't warrant inclusion into that article. Of course, redirecting would be nice for people searching for this.IncidentalPoint (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there's a good argument for not always creating redirects there; if we make a redirect, it kind of implies that we intend to have some information about that subject in the target article at all times. This is not the case with all redirects; there was a long period of time when Rule 34 redirect to xkcd with no rule 34-related content in the xkcd article.  So, while not endorsing deletion of the info about this week's comic in the xkcd article, I would endorse deletion of this instead of just a redirect in case it ever leads to a situation like the above.  Soap Talk/Contributions 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect but after the week has passed, otherwise how would the benefactor know where to make the donation? 75.125.126.8 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cute, but delete. Artw (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and full protect for the time being. Though the comics are very amazing, this does not pass the notability policy, and likely never will. I hoped we would not have to do this, but :( Interestingly, this article itself is indeed pretty neutral. It also has 144 words. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect from re-creation Soap is right on the mark...guys like Munroe and Ryan North just like to make crazy suggestions and then watch how crazy people actually carry them out, and I'm sure they get a kick out of seeing people get worked up over such a trivial thing. (I guess they're kind of like the Joker, but not creepy.) We should never be creating an article or editing an article because xkcd, Dinosaur Comics, or whoever else told us to; these things are meant to be jokes. r ʨ ana ɢ  talk/contribs 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the comic has a good point, but this is going to encourage silly editing of a barely-notable concept. Sceptre (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...it's rapidly becoming vaguely notable. The concept is notable, I know of several people writing articles now, hours after the comic was put up, and it seems at least two people are actually offering to donate real money based on the outcome.  However, agreed it probably won't be very notable at all two weeks from now. 75.125.126.8 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Fails notability criteria, and a general lack of reliable sources. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to XKCD- While the whole thing is amusing, it really isn't deserving of its own article, and there is no harm from a redirect. Deleting, or deleting and salting, seem like overly harsh measures for something so harmless. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability as an event or for web content. If many notable third-party sources run the story, which I hope to your deity of choice they don't, we should reconsider then.  Flying Toaster  16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No third-party coverage &laquo;O73&raquo; 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Policy is not to create redirects every single time someone who may be notable in and of himself makes something up. Redirecting this sets a horrible precedent, considering how often xkcd covers Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MADEUP has nothing to say about redirects -- could you point us to the policy you have in mind? For reference, here's the list of valid reasons to delete a redirect.  Baileypalblue (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable, no third-party sources. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose that this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. Skomorokh  17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I contest your proposition. Such an article could potentially be beneficial to those with interest, and certainly supplements the common knowledge. Apollo2991 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Apollo2991 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo2991 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Take off and nuke it from orbit Some of us still have to do permanent trollwatch on Wood thanks to XKCD. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is neither an xkcd endorsement, nor vandalism. It simply provides a holistic interpretation of a topic, for the good of common knowledge. Apollo2991 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Apollo2991
 * Delete and protect. Other articles get deleted when they fail to establish notability through reliable sources, I don't see why this article would be an exception. Protect because it's very likely to be recreated by fans of XKCD. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg |  log ]  18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for sure. What are you bureaucrats so afraid of? DrTall (talk) 18:50, 18 February 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.