Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism


 * 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 keep, even after minus-ed the sockpuppet votes. Mailer Diablo 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Smurfs and communism
This page appears to violate No original research, see also What Wikipedia is not. References cited at the end appear to consist mostly of blog entries and geocities pages and so forth. -- Curps 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, it seems there was a prior AfD, which I didn't see because it was nominated under the previous title Smurf Communism rather than the current title. -- Curps 19:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So...would you agree with the speedy keep option? --BorgQueen 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the nomination was in good faith and my delete vote would still apply, for reasons given in the nomination above. Four months since the last nomination is not an unreasonably short time, although I might have waited at least six months had I known of the prior nomination. -- Curps 19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because not using "geocities pages and so forth" is for scientific articles, not cultural/internet phenomenas where such sources are easier to justify and in many situations neccesary. Debolaz 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I VOTE TO KEEP IT
 * Keep per previous deletion attempt. BrianSmithson 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per previous deletion attempt --Larsinio 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment based on the link you provided, it looked like the previous deletion vote was a mess of sockpuppets and unregistered users, even a few unsigned votes--64.12.116.202 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See below for comment by user 205.188.117.65, who analyzed the previous AfD. -- Curps 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The communism metaphor in the Smurfs is a reasonably well-known concept. I recall I've read an article mentioning on it in Reader's Digest. If the quality of the references cited here does not reach our standard, I'll give it a try to fix it. --BorgQueen 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known, interesting, even if the article could use a little bit of cleanup work--Tailer Wag 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems silly but ultimatly well written, keep pending a few better sources--Hellio&#39;bati&#39; 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Silly but verifiable as a theory --kingboyk 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I pitty the foo' who tries to censor wikipedia Mr.T
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. The subject may well be reasonably well-known but the presentation of the arguement is woeful. Manual of Style refers.   (aeropagitica)   23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep why are people always in so big hurry to delete notable articles from the encyclopedia?--Heffer hound 23:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. No problem with the content, but clearly OR.  Note one single citation!  Dsol 23:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG keep only a silly noob would nominate such a notable topic for deletables--H00p y0w 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP set of very interesting facts, coincidences that shall not be censored --Mateusza 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The following was posted to my talk page regarding the previous deletion vote: Articles for deletion/Smurf Communism. -- Curps 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I am reposting it here:
 * You don't notice anything fishy about most of those keep votes?
 * ???? I've never seen 19 sockpuppets on 1 AfD before--205.188.117.65 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete While I can agree with the sentiment of the article, it does strike me as OR. D e nni &#9775;  01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I heard about this from my Government teacher at St. John's College High School back in 93... so its definately not OR. Its a common example... I think its worthy of at least a brief mention, perhaps a merge into Communism as a subheading "Communism in popular culture"?  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the references for this are Geocities sites and the like. Would want stronger references before deciding to keep something like this. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, e-mail forward cruft. Gazpacho 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Much "emial forward cruft" are internet memes, and thus have encyclopedic sginfiicance --Larsinio
 * You'll notice that every article linked from that article mentions some definitive source. This doesn't, which makes it unverifiable. Just read it, it's weasel terms from beginning to end. Gazpacho


 * Keep, but needs a cleanup Marminnetje
 * Keep and cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:V. Zunaid 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * why delete, why not just cleanup? Sources are listed form which it can be verified, it just needs to be fereferenced --Larsinio 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup Jaco  plane  17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Internet meme large enough to be notable. However it should be re-worked as an internet meme article, discussing not only the theory, but the history of the meme (where it started, who started it, time line of key eventsw etc..) which is more valuable contextual information for future researchers. --Stbalbach 17:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since the exemple is also known in Quebec (diffrent culture and language, so the information traveled). Many people used this cartoon to illustrate the concept of communism. Bragador 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reference for this? -- Curps 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it. No reason it should be deleted Buzda 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete due to sock flood and WP:NOR. Stifle 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the NOR I buy, but a sock flood should hopefully never be a reason to keep or delete. (whose to say the socks aren't by someone hoping to get it deleted? :) - Turnstep 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - pure original research, trying to sneak into wikipedia in the guise of an internet meme. (Not to mention the sockpupppet flood here, for the second time) Raul654 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * its definately not 'pure' original research. I originalyl started this article, and I based all the content on every single smurf internet webpage i could find. --Larsinio 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, it's much closer to a copyvio, then it is to OR--64.12.116.202 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP This article is finally starting to make some progress, currently in the process of improving the citation and external links sections, would be a shame to kill it while it's still a work in progressSmithe377 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new user, see . -- Curps 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason to delete, not OR. Turnstep 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as a valuable reference on a culturally significant phenomenon.--StAkAr Karnak 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The culturally significant phenomenon would be what exactly? That paranoid people with blogs have too much free time?--64.12.116.202 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep and cleanup. There is some interest in the matter, no matter how ridiculous it is, but the article needs a good cleanup and definitely better sources. And it is better to have it separate than to fill half the Smurfs page with it, as it originally did. Fram 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very popular interpreptation, and as with all other common intepreptations of cultural works, Wikipedia should document it. --Tmh 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ahem, --152.163.101.11 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Kind of Keep that Screams with the Power of Glamdring. This meme actually dates back to the mid 1980s and before, passed around on bulletin-board systems and in newspaper articles before that. It predates a lot of the whiners who are voting not to keep. --165.193.104.40 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, well thanks, user's first and only edit--152.163.101.11 00:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Since Smurfette was the sole female Smurf, it is also a commentary on the situation in Communist China where a disparity in baby genders has arisen. ;-) Ruby 01:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Madame Sosostris 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have All your base are belong to us, don't we? -- Michalis Famelis 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. JeffBurdges 05:03, 12 February 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.