Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. The only discarded comment was from the anonymous User:216.8.155.66; I've included comments from User:Mcjsfreak07 and User:Phantasmo because they have had other positive (but minimal) contributions to Wikipedia. Overall, 11 delete and 7 keep. Personally, I believe this subject does not belong in Wikipedia, but may be suited for WikiNews. It appears to me that some people are confusing the concepts of encyclopedic value and news-worthiness. Many topics make the news, even at a national scale, that have little or no encyclopedic merit. In my opinion, the Saugeen stripper made the news simply because the story was sensational, rather than the story having any social value. Irrespective of my beliefs, the article stays because of a lack of consensus. Mind matrix  17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was unclear, but it seems likely he is the same person who blanked the article two minutes earlier, saying "This has NO business on wikipedia, it is a glorified non event that people need to get over". Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know...seems to be getting plenty of traction as an Internet meme. I've got over 20k Google hits, and have seen it all over the blogosphere. I'm leaning to Keep. You can call me Al 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I tagged this as a possible hoax when it was created and the creator provided sources on the talk page which show that it was picked up by mainstream media in Canada - I think that makes it notable enough. I see no other argument being made for deletion, therefore I say keep. David Johnson [ T|C ] 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my mind. I am still not convinced that the event is not notable enough for Wikipedia (it was picked up by national press in Canada for which sources are provided) but the article as it stands isn't a Wikipedia article, it's a cross between a news article and a blog post, so delete (unless re-written). David Johnson [ T|C ] 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this article amounts to "students got up to some stuff, someone took pictures". It's a nine-days wonder.  For values of wonder which exclude interest by the 50% of the population who prefer the other gender, and the ninety-odd percent of the rest who are not in the grip of chronic testosterone poisoning. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. --YUL89YYZ 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a non event, let it go. --Oxxiox 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If this article has sources, and this really was a notable event (reported in the media or something to that effect), I see no reason why it should be deleted. - Bootstoots 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How about because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Every day countless billions of things happen, millions of them are reported locally, thousands of them are reported more widely, hundreds go on to become continuing stories, and one or two might become globally notable events - and only after time has lent some perspective can we tell which is which.  Given that this article doesn't even have basic facts like date and names, I would suggest it is a minor titillating story to pad out local newspapers on a slow news day and of no discernible encyclopaedic merit. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's at least as notable, and has as much or more detail, as a large portion of the articles linked from Internet phenomenon. Whether it actually has any staying power...*shrug*. You can call me Al 20:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. If we start a WikiBachelorParty log, it can be the first article up. Mikeblas 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed. Mcjsfreak07 13:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as Canadian media issue. -- JJay 22:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable non-event. u p p l a n d 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not signficant, and lacking the most basic of information.  Also, I don't really thing a college dorm striptease is a big deal in the modern Western world.    --Rob 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC
 * What information is lacking? Almost all of the widely reported facts are in the article. Perhaps a reasonable solution, if you know information that is missing, is to edit the entry providing the information, rather than suggesting deletion because it is incomplete? I thougt that was how Wikipedia was designed to work? Tokyojoe2002 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is precisely the point: almost all of the widely reported facts are in the article, and still we don't know when, where (beyond a building with hundreds of rooms), who, why (beyond speculation) and so on. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So you propose deleting a valid article because 100% of the facts arent yet there? Flag it to be cleaned up, of heaven's forbid, maybe some of those with the information could actually contribute rather than blanking pages? The answer is not censorship. Tokyojoe2002 01:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It cites blogs, which may not be reliable, but are just as reliable as everything else on Wikipedia. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.8.155.66 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Keep keep keep. All of the sources are legit. It is a legitimate pop culture occurence that has received tons of national and international press. This deserves an entry, absolutely and without question. There may be moral questions, but those who have a problem with it can cite nothing other than personal feelings for the subject. Should we start allowing subjects of wikipedia articles based on true events determine what is said here? This is a SOURCE for information based on real happenings!! ... clearly, those who are pushing most ardently for the removal of the page are doing so based not in any violation of wikipedia policy, or lack of relevance in information, but rather due to personal relationships with the apparent subject of the article. Deletion for these reasons and these reasons alone is a slippery slope. THAT to be seems to be the most dangerous precedent of all. That said, I will defer to the decision of the admin, but I strongly believe deletion would be wrong.Tokyojoe2002 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The convention on these discussions is to add new comments to the bottom. I've moved your comment. You can call me Al 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The story is more the mainstream propogation of the story, and how quickly that happened (granted over 2 months after the event), the actual events are a footnote compared to that, furthermore, reporting on the speed of how quickly a story spreads, in the mainstream media, is effectively giving the story a very large booster shot, which in my oppinion makes it a conflict of interest, as then the media sources are directly involved in the story on which they are repeating. I apologize for the run on sentence!-Oxxiox 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's humurous. I don't even know this person's name, and I want this junk tossed.   --Rob 22:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uppland and Rob. --Metropolitan90 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To the admins, when making your final call, I ask that you consider the that a number of those on the delete side seem to have an agenda other than providing Wikipedians with information. IF the story is legit, and has spawned national and internation interest, and has spread onto over 22,000 websites, then it IS A STORY and it belongs here for people to know about. As of now, no real names are used, and while I think that it would be a valid piece of information to the article, the fact is, it can stay that way if needed. But to keep the story off of the pages here for some arbitrary moral reasons that fly in the face of the provision of information is not the answer.Tokyojoe2002 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on the part of the voters. We should assume that all editors cast their votes for the reasons they stated rather than ascribe ulterior motives to them. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was merely commenting on their own statements, that they personally knew the subject. Tokyojoe2002 13:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not including me in that smear, Tokyojoe. My reason for voting delete was precisely as stated, although it now transpires that there are verifiability issues as well since the primary source turns out to be unreliable, whatever the secondary sources might say, and as yet we have very little actual information - no names, no date, no room number, no actual proof that this was not a staged event or a publicity stunt. As above, the fact that students get up to pranks is scarcely groundbreaking research. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reconsidered. Removal of this article will be a absolute travesty. I look at the list of items on the articles for deletion page, and of all of them, this one absolutely belongs. Do the right thing, admin. Make the call. Keep the article. Tokyojoe2002 13:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering, other than the fact that you made the article, what is your stake in this? Do you really believe that wikipedia must educate the world about how some nameless girl stripped for a room full of guys one night in unversity? Why is this worth reading? If you live in saugeen I'd love to sit you down and ask you in person why you feel it is so completely important that you educate the masses on exactly what happened that night in that room. And if you don't live in saugeen, why is this so important to you? It would just be some drama that happened "over there" at the UWO. I knew far more about the story than is posted in the article the day after it happened and you don't see me vehemently defending the article I created about the incident. I'm sure I've said this before, cause I think it's pretty catchy and illustrates the point very well, but please, show her the respect that she (arguably) didn't show herself that night and just let it go. I really have nothing else to add. I sincerely hope that you see where I'm coming from with this. -Oxxiox 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * if you knew more about this the day after it happened than the article talks about why arent you being constructive and contibuting rather than trying to delte the article? that doesnt make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.196.116 (talk • contribs) 12:55, January 3, 2006


 * I too am wondering about Tokyojoe2002's fervor on this topic, as well as those who are fervently arguing for its deletion. Perhaps it's my own surfing habits, but I have encountered discussion of this "event" multiple times out and about on the web. I certainly think it qualifies as an Internet phenomenon but I don't understand all the emotion surrounding it. Personally, I think the article should have far more information about the discussion of the event than the event itself. You can call me Al 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough blogosphere and mainstream traction. Item on national newscast. The Tom 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and hardly verifiable. Not all events having had media coverage (even at the level of national broadcast) are for WP: I have seen a report on a car accident in the last TV news program, but yet we don't have and should not have an article on it. - Liberatore(T) 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia inclusion is merited as this story had a very brief, but very loud, impact on the web. this is a term coined in national media that now has name recognition and a story behind it. scanning the list of articles on the afd page, most had very little meaning to me, but this one had instant recognition and the article, while lacking many details (and needing a rewrite), provides an outline of this semi-major media event. Phantasmo 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be relevant to note that User:Phantasmo's first ever contribution was to this nomination page. They have however edited several articles since then - make of that what you will. --David Johnson [ T|C ] 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'll concede that it's received some attention in press blurbs and blogs, but ultimately I think it sets a bad precedent to include flash-in-the-pan stories like this. It's certainly not the first time something scandalous has happened in a dorm. Ohnoitsjamie 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this is a notable meme erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 18:30, 5 January 2006 (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.