Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pie vs cake


 * 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 speedy deleted per WP:WEB and the like— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pie vs cake

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A comic on a website about whether pie or cake is better. Non-notable obviously. Recury 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The article is not about a comic, nor even about which is better cake or pie. It is about the situation that occured around staff members creating a feud and it's effects on the users of the site. In many ways it is similar (on a drastically lower and much sillier scale) to the publishing of the Mohammad comics and the outrage stirred up in the Islamic community because of them. (Much much lower and sillier scale) Creol 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pie vs Cake feud is Rooster Teeth History. Since Rooster Teeth manages Red vs. Blue, it is Red vs. Blue history and it should be preserved. Relocation is only fair.  – Elizabeth Shaoblane
 * The entry is a valid argument that people have been following on roosterteeth.com. I see no reason why this article should not be included on wikipedia.  maybe it should be linked on Roosterteeth.com wiki article but still included in wikipedia. maybe it is not noteable to EVERY wikipedia reader but then again most articles are not notable to everyone.  the mere fact that the pie vs cake argument  does in fact have a following should be more then enough reason for a wikipedia article to exist.
 * I think the entry should stay. At least for a little while longer. It is no longer an edited mess. Fritzmonkey 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how the article satisfies our No original research policy. Uncle G 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It has potential, but maybe not in it's current form. There are articles about other internet memes and phenomena. While it certainly is alive and kicking on the Roosterteeth Site, I'm reasonably sure It did not start there and it is on many other sites as well.PollitzerBK 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs to be verifiable from multiple, independent reliable sources. So if some other news site wrote about it that would help, but if its just people on that website talking about it then it isn't independent and if its just blogs or forum posts that talk about it then those aren't reliable sources. Recury 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this artiticle would be better placed on the RvB web site and forum, not here. I see what the Wiki people are saying about it being unnecessary and just silly, but that is the heart of RvB. Anyways, I don't think it should be deleted now, but if it must then lets us move it to the RvB site first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.30.180 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-25 17:35:37
 * Maybe you'd consider some of the others candidates for deletion too, but a lot of the articles in the Internet Phenomena list don't have much verification other than "this image first appeared on the somethingawful forums on Such and such a date" like the HA! HA! guy PollitzerBK 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true, but it doesn't exclude this article from needing them. Recury 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can come up with, most references I'm finding so far are simply other discussion boards talking about the same thing PollitzerBK 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that it's entirely relevant, but in the interests of disclosure I'm the moderator "BigBen" on Roosterteeth.com. I also do some wiki editing and I'm trying to be neutral here, so feel free to consider any potential bias on my part. PollitzerBK 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about something similar (perhaps more cleaned up) to the article on Pirates versus Ninjas. This is a similar phenomenom, and could be dealt with in a similar way. PollitzerBK 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That article isn't referenced at all. It's even got the tag asking for references, so I wouldn't use that as a good example. All your base are belong to us has some references to The Register and CNET (although a lot of the other references aren't very good). Recury 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on the discussion page, the "Pie vs Cake" debate is found across many forums on the internet, not just on RoosterTeeth. RT are just the people who escalated the debate with the comic. However, for many forums and websites with a discussion element, the "pie or cake?" question is a common icebreaker.
 * I suppose that's the question then, how do you reference a phenomenon that has a very obscure beginning, and primarily consists of a debate occurring on discussion boards. Or is this enough to eliminate it for consideration entirely? PollitzerBK 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is. WP:V says: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:RS discusses the reliability of forum posts. Recury 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS also has at the top "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I would certainly agree that because it does not strictly meet the rule it needs extra attention, but in this case I think it's a candidate for an exception. This is because, like the case of the Pirates v Ninjas article, it seems that forum posts are ample evidence to merely document the existence of an internet phenomenon, which is all the article should focus on in any case, not the personal disputes of some roosterteeth staff members. PollitzerBK 18:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia employs sources where the identity of the author/publisher can be ascertained, where it is evident that fact checking and peer review have occurred, and where it is evident that what has been published has been acknowledged by others and has become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. An anonymous or pseudonymous posting to a World Wide Web discussion forum fails that on just about every count.  And as Recury pointed out, you are using as a benchmark an article that isn't satisfactory when it comes to sourcing. Uncle G 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete forum joke at a single site, no claim to notability. Not even close to WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A google search for Pie vs Cakefinds threads on several dozen forums devoted to the topic within the first few pages. I won't make any claims to verifiability or reliability, but that's reasonably notable. PollitzerBK 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never edited anything on wikipedia before, but I feel I need to have my say on this one. The Pie vs Cake argument, although I do not know whether started on the Roosterteeth website, it was the first place that I (and i would warrant many other people) heard of the argument. Just because this article is based on references to discussion boards, forums and the news pages of a few websites does not mean it should be deleted from this one, it is a large argument, which first started out as a joke based on actual events taking place in an office which were quite comical and surreal. The fact that some people decided to take the argument seriously is, i believe reason enough for it to have a place on Wikipedia. It should at the very most be moved to an article concerning the way in which people sometimes do not recognise humor, or refuse to, thus creating a serious disagreement. In closing, this article's subject matter does belong on this website, quite simply because it is information, and information is what this website is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.54.69 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
 * This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Our metric of whether something is deserving of an article is whether it has already been properly documented by independent sources outside of Wikipedia.  Your metric is perhaps a reason for those sources to consider documenting the subject in the first place.  But Wikipedia is not a primary source and until they do document the subject, it should not have an article. Uncle G 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - seems to miss the mark under multiple parts of WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:NOTE, and WP:NOR. The Rooster Teeth article is most appropriate, if the pointless information is part of WP at all.  --JJLatWiki 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not expand the article to include more the the RT content and references? Fritzmonkey 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)~Darkended Blade (XBL gamertag)I believe the article should be relocated to the history section of the Roosterteeth wikipedia entry, rather than deleated.
 * Speedy delete, surprised it was nominated for an AfD. Clearly non-notable, I agree with User:JJLatWiki re: at best moving a summarised (down to a sentence or two) version to the Rooster Teeth article, in reality it's my opinion that it doesnt really belong on Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 20:40, 25 January 2007 (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.