Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage


 * 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. Consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Internet of Garbage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shamelessly created to make a WP:Point related to the ongoing Sarah Jeong controversy. Trying to manufacture notability for a subject. No coverage in reliable, prominent, mainstream secondary sources. Remember: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * N.B. The book (or ebook, I should say, it was never printed) isn't even available for purchase. Not listed anywhere. Not even an ISBN. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes the relevant notability guideline. The motivation of the article's original creator is irrelevant if the content itself is legitimate, and notability is not temporary. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the the relevant notability guideline? It says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I count a potential one (Berkman Klein Center, if Youtube counts as a publication?). Can you cite any of the other criteria if fulfills? ("The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.")ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * References 3, 7 and 9 meet the first criterion. That's sufficient by itself. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy reads "non-trivial published works" not "any random website". What the heck is "themarysue.com"? You realize the sources you're citing as notable, don't even have Wikipedia pages themselves? The book is not even reviewed in the ZDNet URL you cite. This degree of desperation is rather amusing.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Mary Sue is a well-known culture publication, and I wasn't citing ZDNet as an in-depth review. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So well-known that it is less well-known than this particular subject? Hehehe. So you admit that ZDNet is a trivial mention. So, now we're down to 2. I guess it all rests on your measure of "The Mary Sue"'s notability. Well, let's see, Google Books turns up nothing.... and zero secondary references in Google Scholar too.... while it's Alexa rank is 20,859th... lower than many football club messageboards. Still wanna play this game? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was citing three references as in-depth, none of which were ZDNet. The numbers refer to this revision. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! So you were citing a blog called Techdirt? Thanks for clearing that up. But no, sorry, blogs don't count as notable RS. Thanks for clearing that up then, you're back down to 1 secondary source. We're agreed then, not enough to reach the notability criteria, yes? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Techdirt is suitable for this purpose per WP:BLOGS. And there is now a fourth in-depth discussion, in Poland (2016). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that post doesn't make any sense to me. Can you try writing it again? Can you quote what policy in WP:BLOGS supports your claim? And what about Poland in 2016? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel like the authors allegations break Wikipedia rules such as the Assume the good faith rule, No crystal balling rule and the Don't offend other users. If anything, he is trying to make a point here because he is obviously politically motivated against the hero and that's why he's created this nom. The article passes notability guidelines too. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If we did have a "rule" against offending other users, we'd neve get anything done! :D   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Important comment The nominator has simply removed other people's comments as well as votes to keep the article, removed them from this very page. A few examples:, Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And with a deceptive edit summary to boot. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ladies and gentlemen, ZinedaneZinedane will not be bothering this AfD again...well, not unless t's relisted another three times. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good Openlydialectic (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bad faith nomination, article is sufficiently cited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Given an apparent bad faith nomination, coupled with the fact that WP:NBOOK is satisfied - some of the coverage is more like large mentions, but there is certainly sufficient reviews etc to cover it well enough for our purposes, I would advise a speedy close as there is no non-keep statement at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. While probably the author being in the news prompted creation (from redirect) of the article, editorial motivation is not a deletion rationale (and editors are motivated by many things, including news - and there is nothing wrong with that). The NBOOK bar (which is generally quite low) is clearly met by this book which is covered by multiple IRS.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My perception of a nom's motivation is probably somewhat determined by their later actions in the AfD. I'd actually challenge your "motivation not a deletion rationale" in some circumstances, but i am probably in mixed views on this particular one. In any case, we seem to be meeting SNOW standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)


 * 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.