Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unable to find any sources, reviews, appearance on bestseller lists etc that shows it to pass WP:NBOOKS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Books, Amazon, Goodreads, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, BookLikes, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Chicago Tribune, Sun Sentinel BornonJune8 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are at least 25 separate references on Wikipedia relating to that book. BornonJune8 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=What+Were+They+Thinking%3F++David+Hofstede&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=d1mqd7jc16q8l8c3l9ce4v4s5
 * ...That's not how this works. See WP:NBOOKS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is a pretty well known book that I've heard a lot about, I was sure if I went looking that I would find a bunch of sources, but I honestly found nothign of value. Very suprising to me but it seems this book is not notable.★Trekker (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be because you didn't try or bother to look further enough!
 * You can't have it "either/or"! How can you say that it's a pretty known book that you've heard a lot about yet on the same token, say that you personally found nothing of real value (there's a reason that things like Google exist)?  Frankly, what to you constitutes "true value" in this particular case!?  BornonJune8 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC) https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=970&ei=kLg5WpTjPM30jwPH-qmQDA&q=what+were+they+thinking%3F%3A+the+100+dumbest+events+in+television+history+David+Hofstede&oq=what+were+they+thinking%3F%3A+the+100+dumbest+events+in+television+history+David+Hofstede&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5938.6413.0.7502.2.2.0.0.0.0.66.132.2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.66...0j35i39k1j0i30k1.0.eLHh9tiRoCc BornonJune8 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not fame, please read wikipedia guidelines on notability and learn something.★Trekker (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.quora.com/Is-notability-and-its-guidelines-on-Wikipedia-the-same-as-fame/answer/Olaf-Simons?__filter__&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=1814567313
 * Actually - in a way - yes, that’s what it is. Wikipedia notability is something like fame.

Wikipedia is free to edit. Anyone can press the button on top of a specific page or next to a subsection. You do not even need a registered account (as on Facebook or here on Quora). Edit and you will leave you IP address and date as the only traceable credential.

All this sounds extremely egalitarian - “this is the encyclopaedia made by its users…” The hidden downside is the pages authoritarian self-definition: If you want to take part you have to leave aside all your personal vanities. This project is about creating an encyclopaedia and it only allows information that has some authority behind - not your personal authority but the authority of sources that can substantiate the collective knowledge an encyclopaedia would gather.

This becomes most visible in the field of biography - where everyone would love to have his or her personal moment of fame: “I am so important that the most important encyclopaedia of the age has an article on me!” - and here we get the notability criteria. They define what the global community defines to be worthy to be noted. You are important if others have decided that one must know more about you - you cannot enter the enter of this hall of fame by simply writing the article on you that will turn you into a celebrity.

The entire set of rules in extended. When is a book you wrote so important that it deserves an article? When is an article about your book so important that it can turn your book into an object mankind must know more about. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I did find some stuff here, here, here, here and here, but is't not much.★Trekker (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found more
 * Looking Back at the Star Wars Holiday Special
 * 10 of the worst TV shows of all time - a scientific* meta-analysis
 * Happy Fake Jan Day
 * Happy Wookiee Life Day from Luke, Leia, Han, and... uh... Bea Arthur, I Guess.
 * The Man You Can Blame for the Star Wars Holiday Special
 * Christmas TV Party 2015: David Hofstede
 * Star Wars Holiday Special / Star Wars on TV - Classic TV / TVparty!
 * The 10 Dumbest TV Shows of All Time – Flavorwire
 * Yes Virginia, There is a Star Wars Holiday Special | HuffPost
 * TV Land “Rebrands” to Raunchy | Parents Television Council
 * 10 things you might not know about TV commercials
 * Do you remember the Star Wars Holiday Special? - MeTV
 * Existence is Horror: “The Neon Demon” & “Bad Ronald”
 * By Ken Levine: Friday Questions
 * Rifftrax: Star Wars Holiday Special – VOD Review
 * SleuthSayers: Christmas Stories: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
 * The Star Wars Holiday Special: Welcome to the Dark Side - WrestleCrap
 * What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In ... - TV Tropes

BornonJune8 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's trivial coverage - mentions. Similar to the mentions that Bornon found on wikipedia articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get what your exact criteria is for what is or isn't "trivial" or "notable"? The book is almost 14 years old now and has often been referenced upfront when it comes to historically covering the very worst of American television up until that point.  Just because you personally don't think that it's notable enough doesn't mean that there isn't more to find or look for online beyond just four cases. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please by god just look up the wikipedia page for notability, it's not hard to come by. No one has time or interest to go into detail for something which you could easily find out by yourself. This has nothing to do with personal opinon, wikipeida has rules that has to be followed.★Trekker (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that you just proved my point about not having the time or interest to look further into things (guidelines or elsewhere)! BornonJune8 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found way better sources than you in a much shorter span, this article does not have a single good source in it right now. In the end your the one who has to prove that the subjetc is notbale, not me that it isn't. I have no job here beyond the fact that I want you to learn something, mainly guidelines.★Trekker (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only you personally think the sources that you found are "better" (of course the supposed "better" or more viewed ones are going to come first) or the only ones that are acceptable. And I find it odd that you're saying that it's solely my job to prove that the subject is notable, yet you still have some invested interest in it (considering that virtually anybody on Wikipedia can add and contributed information to any particular article regardless of whom exactly started it in the first place). BornonJune8 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And how is that any different than an article for instance on the books The Fifty Worst Films of All Time and The Hollywood Hall of Shame!? This is basically the same thing except for television.  The What Were They Thinking... book must be remotely notable if it's going to be acknowledged in at least five different websites.  Again, you don't seem to want to bother looking further than that. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You should really get to know wikipedia guidelines more. Being mentioned on four websites is not notability, at all. And bringing up that other articles exist for other possibly non-notable books doesn't help this article or your case at all.★Trekker (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You only bothered to consider only five websites noteworthy to justify your argument (as oppose to trying to further build a case)! And how exactly are the other articles that I brought up possibly "non-worthy" (are they entirely or ultimately non-noteworthy because you personally never heard of them or read them)!? BornonJune8 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. My. Fucking God. Just read the guideline page and learn something. It's like talking ot a stubborn child. Anyone with any knowlege of wikipeida standards would understand simply mentioning a book without giving any analasys is not "in depth" coverage. If you want to build a case for why this article should be kept you could start of by finding a review of it from a reputable source.★Trekker (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you proof-read your remarks before you're going to respond to me profanely (and you're calling me a child). And what else does there need to be said!  I said that the book was published in the year 2004 and was written by David Hofstede with the foreword by Tom Bergeron.  The article also points out that it only focuses on American television and links to the jumping the shark article in the opening paragraph.  And then, there are at least 25 references of this book (and 18 external links mentioning it) that have been culled from Wikipedia in connection to the entries on the list.  BornonJune8 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article will be deleted, and you refuse to even try to understand wikipedia's standards. How about you read at all, like wikipedia guidelines for example? That would save everyone else a lot of trouble. I'm done here.★Trekker (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only time will tell (two people don't make a consensus, so I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions just yet)! And at least I don't have to resort to using profanity out of frustration (or bluntly shoving my "superiority" about the inner workings of Wikipedia) and insulting people whom I disagree with by calling them a "stubborn child". BornonJune8 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. It seems this is used as a reference/citation quite a bit, e.g. -, , , , , , , , , - where David Hofstede ranking of the worst shows is deemed to be an expert opinion. However, this does not advance notability of the book itself per the 5 criteria in WP:NBOOK. I do however think that some of the content here could be used in an article for David Hofstede, and that this would advance Hofstede's claim to notability. A rename is perhaps possible.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is about a NN book, consisting of a list article of its contents.  Non-encyclopedic.  If it were not a book, it would fail WP:OR.  As it is it is an authjor's personal selection.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well by that logic, books like The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, The Hollywood Hall of Shame, and The Golden Turkey Awards are purely based on the author's personal selection also. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete passing mentions in sources that I am not sure meet reliable anyway, or slightly less passing mentions in the authors own blog, do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this clearer enough for you (from around the time of the book's initial release)...

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv/2004/11/25/Tuned-In-From-home-grown-to-world-famous-feast-on-TV-turkeys/stories/200411250164 http://www.vindy.com/news/2004/oct/23/on-this-tv-events-list-dumb-and-dumber/?print http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-12-26/entertainment/0412221020_1_geraldo-rivera-nielsens-magic-johnsonBornonJune8 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That coverage looks ok - however can't copy in entire articles.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:52, 30 December 2017 (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.