 |
- 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. SarahStierch (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
RFO Basic[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- RFO Basic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Sources are either not independent or do not mention RFO basic. noq (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Concur with noq. Cited sources are all either primary or do not mention RFO Basic! at all. Searching on Google, GNews, Gscholar does not turn up anything better for sources at a glance. Seems to be a hobby project for Android which does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT or even WP:GNG for now -- although it seems to have gathered a little following, so maybe it will turn out to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Either way, does not seem like a keeper right now. -- BenTels (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- delete Just another BASIC dialect. It would have to be something pretty stellar to make BASIC notable and this isn't it. Serious lack of independent sourcing too.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- retain Please let me start by stating that I am the author of the article in question; I do not wish to mislead anyone. Here is my position: RFO BASIC is a software product. Due to the rapid development environment of all software, notable and important software frequently does not have extensive mention on the internet. This, in and of itself, should not be considered a measure of notability; and hence, lack of extensive mention on the internet should not be used as a criteria for article deletion. However, it should be noted that a search for 'RFO Basic' on Google returned approximately 1,750,000 hits. Clearly it is not an invisible product.
I feel the use of the phrase 'seems to be a hobby project for Android...' is used in a dismissive sense - as if to imply that hobby projects are all unworthy of articles in Wikipedia. First, I disagree with the implication; I feel that even hobby projects, from quiltmaking to beekeeping, are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia if they meet Wikipedia criteria. But more importantly, it is an incorrect conclusion; RFO BASIC is not a hobby project. All programming languages are used for both personal and professional use, and RFO BASIC is no exception. Speaking as a professional programmer, I am satisfied that RFO BASIC has everything it takes to write extensive, industrial strength programs. The speed, stability, and flexibility are all present. It's a fast, tough, solid and flexible language. In terms of market penetration, Amazon.com marketplace has 'sold' (at no charge) 1,000 copies of RFO BASIC. Appslib.com has distributed more than 10,000 copies; and Google play store, the primary distributor, has distributed 30,000 copies. That totals 41,000 people (to date; the numbers go up every day) who were motivated enough by the promise of a free and useful programming language to actually download and install the software on their Android capable device. These are very high numbers; other programming languages available for Android struggle to reach 10% of these numbers. But even more importantly, the demand is trending upward; more copies were distributed in the second quarter of this year than in the first. As word spreads, more and more people are turning to RFO BASIC as their programming language of choice. Readers reviews on Google Play Store show 439 reviewers granting a rating of 4.7 out of 5. This is a higher rating than any other product I have checked, and is a reflection of how satisfied people are with the product. The comment "Just another Basic dialect" - again, this comment seems to suggest that there are many Basic dialects (correct) available for Android (incorrect). In fact, there is one other dialect of BASIC available for the Android operating system - Mintoris Basic, which is a commercial, for profit product. According to Google, it has sold between 1,000 and 5,000 copies. One of the things that makes RFO BASIC so notable and important is that, in the world of Android operated phones and tablets, RFO BASIC is the only BASIC programming language available for free. This has tremendous importance in the third world (where cellphones are commonly used instead of land lines, due to lack of land line infrastructure); in many areas of the third world, people live on less than $2 US dollars a month. To purchase a commercial language requires an expenditure of several months earnings. But that isn't true of RFO BASIC; it's free. It's also powerful, solid, fast and flexible. This is the kind of power that changes lives, and ultimately countries. For a gifted programmer to make this kind of power available at no cost to impoverished people around the globe is more than noble; it's notable. And we should take note. "It would have to be something pretty stellar to make BASIC notable and this isn't it." This comment seems to suggest that BASIC (the entire language, not just RFO BASIC) is unimportant. Clearly this does not represent the consensus of Wikipedians, for there is a Wikipedia article on Basic. Basic, as a language, is notable. That's why the Wikipedia page exists. I feel the comment also reflects a bias against the BASIC language in general. While different people have different preferences in programming languages, I have noted a common (and unfortunate) tendency among some individuals to denigrate particular languages; and BASIC is frequently a target. Because BASIC was designed as a teaching language, it is frequently the first language taught in introductory programming courses. This often inspires the belief that it is in some way a 'junior' or 'incomplete' or 'limited' or 'deficient' language. That is both unfortunate, and untrue. Personally, over 30 years I have programmed in IBM 360 Assembler, 6502 Assembler, CDC Basic, COBOL, FORTRAN, various iterations of Visual Basic, Borland C++, Visual C++, and probably several others that escape my recollection at the moment. This breadth of experience has provided me with the opportunity to recognize useful programming tools. The cost, speed, solidity, flexibility, and ease of use makes RFO BASIC such a tool. It should not be denigrated. To continue to address the comment: "...and this isn't it." Really? Why? To the best of my knowledge, RFO BASIC provides support for every single function and feature that exists on any Android powered cellphone or tablet, anywhere in the world. There is support for gravity sensors, proximity sensors, GPS receivers... the list is extensive. Supporting all these hardware capabilities in a software product is an extremely difficult feat; I would be surprised to discover many other languages that offer the extensive peripheral hardware support that RFO BASIC offers. I don't really know how one could make that achievement more stellar. "Serious lack of independent sourcing". Possibly; as a new wikipedian, I'm unsure as to the meaning of the comment. If you mean that there is a lack of complete footnoting or attributable sourcing for every statement, I will agree. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I am sure that it could be improved in many ways. But it should be improved, not deleted. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater... or allow my inexperience in writing wiki-style articles to delete an entire topic for everyone. We should do better, not destroy. Here are the Wikipedia 'in a nutshell' guidelines for software articles: "Software articles should avoid promotional wording and establish significance. Consider the circumstances surrounding an article in relation to the type of sources used. Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations." "avoid promotional wording"... think I did that. "establish significance"... by discussing the notability (importance) of RFO BASIC (to both the Android platform and the world at large) in the first several lines of the first paragraph, I think I did that. "Consider the circumstances surrounding an article in relation to the type of sources used." Sorry, but I haven't a clue in the Universe as to what that sentence means. Perhaps I'm just exceptionally stupid. "make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations." Whether the article is Notable or not is a subjective assessment that is arrived at by each reader. For example, an article on a 15 year old starting up a rock band in his basement is probably not notable; but an article on a major political figure probably is. However, there's a broad and fuzzy spectrum in between, and this is where most articles - including RFO BASIC - probably lay. I feel that because a) this language is a traditional dialect of BASIC, which is very easy for new and non-programmers to learn; and b) the language runs on the Android operating system, which is the most prevalent operating system in the cell phone and tablet arenas today; and c) the language is very fast (programs run quickly); and d) stable (programs don't crash); and e) the language is flexible (there is support for every hardware function found on any phone or tablet in the world, so anything you want to do, you can do); and f) the language is currently used by 41,000 people around the world with more joining every day, and the demand is trending up; and g) it is available for free, which has tremendous sociological implications in the third world, and tremendous benefit to impoverished people everywhere; and so, for all of these reasons... I feel RFO BASIC is a notable product, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Let me close by saying that in attempting to address the objections of various Wikipedians to this article, I may have inadvertently hurt some feelings. If so, I sincerely apologize. You should all know that I greatly appreciate the time and effort required to make every submission; and that I feel your efforts will help me write better articles in the future. I appreciate it, and I thank you. Sincerely, Charles Worton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieworton (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Charlieworton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am afraid you have not established WP:notability in the sense that Wikpedia uses the term. That requires significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources - which you said at the beginning is difficult to do. To address your points above,
- a) not relevant to notability or specific to this version of Basic,
- b) not relevant to notability, many thousands of Android apps exist - that does not make them notable,
- c) most definitely not relevant to notability and quite subjective, useful when marketing it but nothing to do with notability.
- d) again, does not make it notable, stability is not one of the notability criteria
- e) still nothing to see here notability wise, it runs on Android and can do things Android lets it do.
- f) not proven and not really relevant - even if 41,000 unique people downloaded it it does not mean they use it,
- g) free or paid for makes no difference to notability. None of these arguments show it as being notable. noq (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Commnet I am afraid you don't get the point. He has established WP:notability because the topic may have an article. In fact: many people work on it and contribute to it to date. Its forum has over 400 members, and it implements most of the solutions a programmer may need to create an application.
- a) name an application that had no changes made to it whatsoever
- b) relevant to notability, if a number of other apps get wikipedia erticles, BASIC! deserver one too
- c) most definitely relevant to notability and quite objective in the sense that it contains no information that may change by one's perspective.
- d) "again, does not make it notable, stability is not one of the notability criteria" <- this comment is not notable, as it does not serve any purpose other than making the list longer to create an impression of you making more good points.
- e) while you are true, doing things on android that the [ADK] lets you with compiling an application on a PC is the whole point of BASIC! (and you also don't need a period at the end of that line)
- f) It is quite obvious that people use it by the 101 topics posted in the forum thread "Shared BASIC! programs", and the many applications distributed standalone on the android market.
- g) free or paid makes a difference. (Would you download a 2x2 white picture for 1$?) These "arguments" make it look like it is notable. Pluto isn't notable because there are millions of known planets and it isn't a planet.
Point: YOU ARE WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.35.207 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — 109.61.35.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'm afraid you have no idea how notability works. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough, and the existiance or not of WP:OTHERSTUFF has no bearing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment The above entry appears to be in response to a forum post calling for people to help keep the article (I cannot post a link as it triggers a spam protection filter, you can google for rfo freeforums to find it). If you came here because of that forum post, please read this first
- Delete - Zero evidence of notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment Gentlemen (and ladies): please allow me to introduce a note of perspective. The typical cost for a 3 terabyte hard drive (3,000,000,000,000 bytes of information) is $150.00 USD as of August 2012. That works out to a cost of 0.000000005 cents per byte. The article in question consumes a space of 8,192 bytes. This means that at current hard drive storage prices it will cost 0.00004096 cents to store this article. That is approximately one twentyfive thousandth of one cent. If no one reads the article, then it will consume no resources beyond its original storage cost. If it is widely read, then it was probably worth retaining. I have heard of much ado about nothing; but this discussion is not that. This discussion is about saving Wikipedia one twentyfive thousandth of one cent. But if you will now excuse me, I must go; I've been asked to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Compared to this, that is a very important job.
- Comment: It has nothing to do with cost. And number of readers is not relevant. -- BenTels (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I strongly move to retain this informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.103.208.226 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2012 (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.
- 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 No Consensus. No prejudice against further discussions of a possible merge/redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
East River Monster[edit]
- East River Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No enduring coverage at all, we're not simply a news site. This isn't really a case of a real example of cryptozoology, it's a dog that got a short puff of coverage and then was totally forgotten. There's a reason we try to wait and not jump on every possible topic to create an article on. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly the article rescue squadron have arrived and voted without significantly improving the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- True. But I would say that it is just blatant sarcasm and not a violent personal attack. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly the article rescue squadron have arrived and voted without significantly improving the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- But you cannot deny that it does have coverage, from reputable, reliable and third-party sources like Telegraph, Animal, etc. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG. This topic has received international coverage in reliable sources. Examples: [9], [10]. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- All the sources are from a small (less than week) period of time. Do we have anything to suggestion this isn't just isn't slow news day coverage? What sources do we have from this month? I also doubt the reliability of these sources, with such statements as "just what is the Parks Department hiding? Is Wilbur a mutant?", where are the sources required for WP:FRINGE to reflect scientific viewpoints, if it is notable? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Telegraph and New York Magazine are definitely reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's follow what the telegraph says about the New York magazine: "The New York's magazine's Daily Intel blog has cranked up the conspiracy with a blog post entitled: "We're Supposed to Believe the New East River Monster Is Just a Pig?"". Do you think the New yorks magazine which "cranked up the conspiracy" sounds reliable in this case? On a separate note, the news reports, as few as they were, died off after July 31st. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The examples presented in my !vote above are just that, examples. Other sources are readily available... Northamerica1000(talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Do they do anything to establish notability of this... let's say event? Or are they all along the lines of the sources already cited in the article and here? -- BenTels (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any from this month instead of last month, can you show what you have found. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The examples presented in my !vote above are just that, examples. Other sources are readily available... Northamerica1000(talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's follow what the telegraph says about the New York magazine: "The New York's magazine's Daily Intel blog has cranked up the conspiracy with a blog post entitled: "We're Supposed to Believe the New East River Monster Is Just a Pig?"". Do you think the New yorks magazine which "cranked up the conspiracy" sounds reliable in this case? On a separate note, the news reports, as few as they were, died off after July 31st. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- All the sources are from a small (less than week) period of time. Do we have anything to suggestion this isn't just isn't slow news day coverage? What sources do we have from this month? I also doubt the reliability of these sources, with such statements as "just what is the Parks Department hiding? Is Wilbur a mutant?", where are the sources required for WP:FRINGE to reflect scientific viewpoints, if it is notable? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATION, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, take your pick. I'm really sorry, but are you kidding me? Sources talking about government conspiracies and coverups, rat armies, secret labs? People who cannot tell the difference between a pig, a dog, a rat, a raccoon and what have you? And "reporters" jumping on the blogosphere bandwagon, with the Telegraph reporting that they're doing it? And that's supposed to be reliable sourcing? No. -- BenTels (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Side note: The East River Monster looks like a dead, partially roasted pig from my judgment of the sources thus far. What exactly is it? Bwah hah hah! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nah. It's just like Roswell. Officials trying to cover things up. It's an Alien Pig-like Martian!!!!! But seriously?! If it was a pig, it probably win the "World's Ugliest Pig" and "World's Freakiest Pig" contests. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Sources abound, but they're all from July and, as notability is not temporary and the East River Pig or whatever it is has not generated any more "widespread coverage", I'd say it's not notable. dci | TALK 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NTEMP is PRECISELY why we should keep this page. This is as there IS enough generated coverage on the monster pig or whatever freak thing it is (or was). Muahaa. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep People will talk about it like they do other such monsters, it sure to be included in nature shows about such things and books like the other such things are. And it does get ample coverage, just not always by this name. [11] Dream Focus 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Brooklyn Bridge 'Monster' May Be Distant Relative Of Long Island ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../brooklyn-bridge-monster-montauk-mon... Jul 26, 2012 – When news spread around New York City this week about the discovery of a grisly-looking, bloated, unidentified animal under the Brooklyn ...
Dead East River 'monster' confounds New Yorkers, animal experts ... articles.nydailynews.com/2012.../32853147_1_pig-east-river-corpse Jul 25, 2012 – A bloated, pig-like carcass spotted beneath the Brooklyn Bridge over the ... has spooked New Yorkers buzzing about mutant river “monsters.
East River Monster Pictures - Business Insider www.businessinsider.com/east-river-monster-picture-2012-7?op=1 What The Heck Is This Terrifying Creature Found Under The Brooklyn Bridge? Dina Spector | Jul. 25, 2012, 3:13 PM | 395,104 | 80 ...
'Beast of Brooklyn' washed up in New York | Fox News - private www.foxnews.com/scitech/.../beast-brooklyn-washed-up-in-new-yor... Jul 26, 2012 – Mystery surrounds the discovery of a hideous creature washed up under the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. Dubbed the "Manhattan monster," its ...
What The Heck Is This Terrifying Creature Found Under The Brooklyn - private www.pakalertpress.com/.../what-the-heck-is-this-terrifying-creature-f... Jul 26, 2012 – A photo posted by Gothamist's Jen Carlson on Monday of a scary-looking carcass found along the East River had everyone rehashing ...
East River 'Monster' - The Blaze - private www.theblaze.com/.../east-river-monster-grotesque-carcass-washes-u... Jul 25, 2012 – We found the dead creature lying on the strip of sand beside the East River, on the Manhattan side, directly beneath the Brooklyn Bridge.
Giant Rat Monster Found Under Brooklyn Bridge! | TeddyHilton.com - private teddyhilton.com › Disgusting! Jul 26, 2012 – Yep...it was good knowing you folks...the world is over and overlords will soon be giant rat mutant monsters that live under the Brooklyn Bridge.
Bloated 'Rat Monster' Found Under New York City Bridge - PawNation - private www.pawnation.com/.../bloated-rat-monster-found-under-new-york-... Jul 24, 2012 – According to Gothamist, a woman discovered this deceased creature laid out under the Brooklyn Bridge on the Manhattan side of New York ... East River Monster Washes Up Below Brooklyn Bridge - YouTube - private
That's just the first page of Google results. Some of those are major news sources I recognize, the rest I'm not sure. Doesn't matter though, there are plenty of notable places covering it. Not sure if it got broadcast on national news or not, but it did some coverage on television as well. Ample coverage. Dream Focus 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- All these sources are from a 2-3 day period. Fully consistent with it being passing news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:GNG has been met. Reliable sources address the subject directly in detail. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are ignoring that it's just slow news day coverage which dropped off almost immediately. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- And you are ignoring GNG. All requirements have been met to prove the subject notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This is something interesting, so it was put in the news. It doesn't matter if the news coverage were all just within the first week or not. Dream Focus 15:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are ignoring that it's just slow news day coverage which dropped off almost immediately. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:GNG has been met. Reliable sources address the subject directly in detail. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- All these sources are from a 2-3 day period. Fully consistent with it being passing news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. and the other things listed there, clearly are about something else. This wasn't anything like that. This was the discovery of a new unknown species which still has not be identified, which makes it notable. We're not mentioning what famous person was seen where, that a traffic accident happened, or a bird pooped on someone's windshield. Totally different situation. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This was the discovery of a new unknown species.[citation needed] WP:EXCEPTIONAL. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then lets not make it exceptional. Lets say that it was the discovery of a new mysterious carcass. Prob solved. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- This was the discovery of a new unknown species.[citation needed] WP:EXCEPTIONAL. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's an interesting topic and it seemed likely that there would be more articles of this sort and so it proved. Our article globster links to several other articles about mysterious carcasses and so, per our editing policy, it makes sense to retain another well-documented case to help this topic area, *ahem*, ripen. Warden (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, and, therefore, is not applicable to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
- See WP:INTERESTING. Also, your argument about what globster links to has little bearing on this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The globster article is quite relevant, being much the same general topic. We see from that existing work that we have articles such as Stronsay Beast — another mysterious carcass which is still being written about 200 years later. The contention that such topics are therefore just news with no lasting notability is thereby shown to be false and so not an adequate reason to delete. As for being interesting, that's just an aside. The policy which I specified here is WP:PRESERVE which indicates that we should not delete such well-sourced material if we can find a good home for it. And clearly, we can. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Every dead animal that washes up or is found somewhere isn't notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is when it gets news coverage for having five digits on each hand and foot, and other characteristics that make it not anything currently known to exist. Dream Focus 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest counting the number of digits on your hand and feet. Five digits is the norm for mammals. [1]IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Side note: Hahahahahahhahh!!! Nice joke you have there, wolfie. You're a way better clown than me. When it comes to telling jokes.(But I bet you cant juggle atomic bombs as well as me!!!!) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Side note 2: Great sarcasm. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- But, one thing to note when saying that. Don't assume one has five digits on each hand and each feet. Some have more, some have less. Hm. Some are not even humans, so they do not have five digits. (On the internet, no one knows if you are a dog...) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- But that aside, I think what Dream Focus was trying to say was that its one of the first pigs (if it was one) to have five digits and such unusual feet, right? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- But, one thing to note when saying that. Don't assume one has five digits on each hand and each feet. Some have more, some have less. Hm. Some are not even humans, so they do not have five digits. (On the internet, no one knows if you are a dog...) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Side note 2: Great sarcasm. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Side note: Hahahahahahhahh!!! Nice joke you have there, wolfie. You're a way better clown than me. When it comes to telling jokes.(But I bet you cant juggle atomic bombs as well as me!!!!) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest counting the number of digits on your hand and feet. Five digits is the norm for mammals. [1]IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is when it gets news coverage for having five digits on each hand and foot, and other characteristics that make it not anything currently known to exist. Dream Focus 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Every dead animal that washes up or is found somewhere isn't notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:INTERESTING. Also, your argument about what globster links to has little bearing on this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. All the coverage is in roughly a 5 day window, indicating that the topic has no lasting notability or persistence ("Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle"). The Event has had no effect ("An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. ")since it featured in newspapers at the end of July. The depth of coverage is insufficient, with most repeating the same claims; there is no source that goes particular in depth, rather they just repeat the same quotes from the interested parties, the telegraph for example, is just a rehash of the other websites. The diversity of coverage isn't great either, with most just repeating the material of each other. It fails every measure of events notability Wikipedia:Notability_(events).
- As summed up by WP:N(E): "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep meets WP:GNG. At a minimum can be merged to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases so deletion is unsupportable. CallawayRox (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep One more example for the List of cryptids. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't keep, i.e. merge and redirect to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, which is a suitable target. Having reviewed the many articles available I can't see anything more than a sensationalistic news burst that died out very quickly. All articles were written around July 26-30 (the latest I saw was this, from August 4, but it's just the original history, so it'd seem they were late to pick it up), and their content is mere speculation and, well, sensationalism. One month later and there isn't any follow-up to be found from those same sources. I couldn't find anything about the one found on Northville except for the initial reports, and that one was a year ago, so I'm not convinced that this is bound to generate in-depth coverage in the future. Lastly, Montauk Monster is not that large that it would be hindered by including this information, and it provides a context in which this particular event can be better understood, so I believe the reader would benefit for having this event presented within that context, rather than being forced to access another article, which in turn doesn't have any substantive content to expand on what was said at the parent article — Frankie (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to add that, in my opinion, the outcome of this debate lies on how one wants to perceive this case. On one hand, one might argue WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP, and WP:PRESERVE, plus the fact that there is ample sources and the subject being unusual in the sense to say that it is no usual animal. General notability seems to be met. But on the other end, naysayers might resort to arguing with the backup of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATION, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, and is, therefore, not relevant to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Although, I am more opposed to a Keep as this case is not the norm and it is unusual and it would be unjust to delete it as it is a well sourced, thorough, descriptive and unique case. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of good sources can be found by simply googling new york city east river monster. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, one might consider a redirect to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, but the relevancy between that and the alien pig is not there. (Unless if you talk about its place of discovery (a shore) , etc.) The East River monster stands out on its own. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most of those hits are not about the topic of this article. I suggest checking "east river monster" instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Searching this and THAT give you roughly the same thing: Lots and lots of reliable and trustworthy and accurate sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of good sources can be found by simply googling new york city east river monster. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- A-ha! Look at Kitchenuhmaykoosib monster. Its referencing is worse... All from May 21/22 only. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. At a glance, I didn't see any mention of the carcass still existing for further verification. If this is the case, there is unlikely to be WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:EFFECT connected with this story. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per GNG, but no opposition to a merge and redirect as suggested above. Cavarrone (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
references[edit]
- ^ Galis, Frietson (2001). "Why five fingers? Evolutionary constraints on digit numbers". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 16 (11): 637–646. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02289-3. ISSN 0169-5347.
((cite journal)): Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
- 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.