Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obnosis


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Obnosis

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

Article is an attempt to expand of what probably can never be more than a dicdef. Major contributing editor has attempted to add numerous sources, but none of the sources actually support the claims made in the article for the widespread usage of the word. Claims that it is in "widespread cultural usage" are doubtful, along with the claims that it is "invoked in reference to open source systems support, systems theory, technical education and cultural Internet sociology." Article is caught in a loop of sources being added, inspected by other editors and found completely lacking, sources being removed. Article comes down to "L. Ron Hubbard used it once or twice," and that isn't encyclopedic. There are also WP:COATRACK issues involved the habitual insertion of obnosis.com into the article. Fails WP:NEO and WP:NOT. Movingboxes (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nomination. There is no real assertion of notability for the topic of Obnosis, though there is evidence of some scattered use of Obnosis as a word - and that mainly as a slang neoglism. The Wiktionary entry for the word seems to cover what is needed to inform readers as to the term. If the article is to remain, it would need a serious clean up to be rewritten as a disambiguation page as that is mainly the direction in which it is headed.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is a scattered jumble loosely or not at all connected with the word Obnosis. Calling it a coatrack would accord it structure that it doesn't have. Most of the references aren't, and the article is full of original research astounding to a long-time participant of ARS (as a critic) and longer-time Usenet reader. The editor promoting the article doesn't play well with others, and has already created a wiktionary entry for it, which seems be all that's needed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rescue Clean up. Notability is served historically and by the 22 cultural and technical references.

Major contributing editor is new to Wiki, works 60 hours a week, does not use any commercial obnosis.com for any profit, has a brief history with Wikipedia, and it's processes. The widespread cultural use is served by 22 references, which mostly exclude Scientology.

The regular changes to each section to remove items without noting sufficiently the issue in suggestive way on the talk page while waiting a reasonable amount of time equate to vandalism or edit war, rather than cooperative communications. LisaKachold's originating site user profile was edited to state "from obnosis.com" as vandalism.

Obnosis.com is applicable in reference to the technical use of the word obnosis (that is also already served by other references Microsoft. The site obnosis.com meets the requirements from Wiki for a reference.

I don't know where the protection banner went or the history on the talk pages but this obnosis page was temporarily protected by Wiki Administration, until it inexplicably disappeared. I don't even know who SCIBABY is but it was referenced by Administrators for Protection. LisaKachold (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork was requested as Dispute Editor to assist to resolve this dispute before a Deletion Page existed. The Deletion Tag was first placed when NO DELETION PAGE existed and none yet was requested. SilkTork voted for deletion [?? Is this appropriate from a Dispute Editor request??]. SilkTork gave feedback related to notability.

Notability is served just as it for the following: gnosis and other slang internet based words? Wiki is not a dictionary but real live living encyclopedia? Therefore obnosis more than meets the criteria for What Wiki is.

meh is yet another example.

Listing a programmer Randal L. Schwartz and his program Schwartzian_transform meets all tests for "What Wiki is NOT", CoatRack or COI?

Every IP I edit this page from endures dOs packets. MovingBoxes has removed tags and edited the talk pages with things like "commercial site" and Conflict of Interest, when none actually exists on this page related to obnosis.com, which is yet another notable non-commercial example. If this page does not meet What Wiki is Not, then the Anonymous_(group) neither meets the requirements, the online AOL derived chat slangs like LOL or WTF do not meet standards? LisaKachold (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The UseNet wars effected literally hundreds of thousands of systems admins, was a good part of discussions at DefCon 6 and 7, and required extensive defenses for flooding and off subject posts as the wars went on alt.religion.scientology creating Anonymous_group recent responses and war on Scientology. We lived through this, it is therefore NOTEWORTHY. The domain obnosis.com was named and came out of this melee. There ARE sufficient qualifying external references for these 3 year pivital internet and legal events to meet Wiki's standards. The terms "Usenet religious wars" until recently actually was referenced on a page related to it here on Wiki, until the misinformation minions of the Church of Scientology began chipping away at it. I could bring in today 10 professions from ISP's to co-sign these facts, but they shiver to think about getting their name and source IP addresses drawn into such silly fights again.

Please just protect this page, that tells the truth for the word, the truth for a period of our lives, and describes and documents (or did before the many edits my MovingBoxes) a new type of non-linear thinking that is an important (and sufficiently referenced) moniker of the information age. This page is only a subject for cleanup; not deletion, by Wiki rules and precedence? 24.251.216.251 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assist me to understand how this page differs from those? Also, please silence the liable type personal statements from MovingBoxes related to "doesn't play well with others". 24.251.216.251 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with rescue. There is real assertion of notability for the topic of Obnosis; there is evidence of use of Obnosis as a word - which is both historical and backed up by 22 or so references. No Wiktionary entry for the word obnosis exists that can fully convey the full topic, like this page does.  If the article is to remain, it would need clean up and citations (attempted by two Wiki editors).  This page is cross referenced from Anonymous_group, Alt.religion.scientology, Cult_of_the_dead_cow and Layer 8 also.  65.218.233.130 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: User:65.218.233.130 removed the AfD citing Remove tag after Administrator ruling dated 30August RESULT KEEP. Have warned them, noting a long history of similar offenses. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is a mess and there's lots of misbehaviour going on around it. There's a wiktionary entry now which should suffice, though the scientology components seem controversial and it would be a shame to see this 'neutral' platform taken away from them... perhaps it can go somewhere else? WikiScrubber (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Rescue. User:65.218.233.130 obviously did not know that the tag saying "RESULT KEEP" was not an administrator ruling. New users to Wiki are often in need of help.  This page is a good example of good beginning submission.  Assist in cleanup by using the talk page.  Please see the complete lack of edits on the Talk Page.  Please note the various lack of Wiki procedures from MovingBoxes for coordinated respectful community consensus.  Please note that the user LisaKachold's account was also edited vandalously and that the page was once protected.  This is not a page for Deletion but a page for cleanup and protection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.216.251 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 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.