Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Greenlighting

Neology. Not notable. Google returns only one entry for this context. Not listed on urban dictionary. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

• This is a hoax. I vote to delete. -- Unsigned comment by Cfarivar also
• This is a vibrant community - the proposer of the vote has something against it -- Unsigned comment by 81.86.252.187
  • Reply to comment I'm sorry if it appears that way, I have nothing against greenlighting. I proposed the deletion because I came across the article, which seems to be a neologism, an attempt to try to create a new term. To defend the article, the best thing you can do is to show proof otherwise. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment If you read the Wikipedia entry, you can find information regarding the matter --Maiael 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
      • Reply to cooment Regardless of whether it is a neologism, it is not notable enough to merit an article. See: google test.-- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
• I agree, as a member of the forums, this definition is important. -- Unsigned comment by 128.143.43.129
• It's an ongoing social phenomenon. I have noticed youth circles all around referring to it. Vessbot 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
• As an active member of the Greenlighting community, I feel that this Wikipedia entry is informative and important to our cause. --Maiael 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
  • As an active non-sock-puppet, I feel that your contributions are suspicious at best. Especially since User:Cordell_Walker manifestly knows a thing or two about Something Awful (or at least the Forums thereof). eritain 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
• Delete by the way, 81.86.252.187 keeps changing the wording to hide the neutral fact statements, so look at the history when voting. More over, this article goes agains the Official Policy of Wikipedia stated at WP:WIN. drini ☎ 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
  • • • Reply to cooment Sorry - I'll stop -
• Delete Nonsense. I am curious what part of policy it violates, though. --Habap 5 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

Oh and the term is apparently 3 days old. If that's not a neologism, I don't know what is! --Habap 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

• • Reply to comment' I dont understand what you mean by that. Because we just now decided that we wanted a wikipedia entry, and we are just now receiving major attention from other blogs and news sites, this makes us a "neologism"? We have been around for quite awhile, but unfortunately, greenlighting is already a popular term; we were overshadowed almost immediately. Greenlighting is a popular movie production term that has garnered a very large internet following. Perhaps you have heard of project greenlight. Also, if you google greenlighting, you can see that it is a common term for giving something approval. It is very hard to be "heard" when so many people are already using the term in mainstream communication.--Maiael 5 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

So, the term was applied to this activity for the first time a few days ago, but actually is normally used for something else? I have heard of Project Greenlight and if greenlighting is actually a popular movie term, this article needs massive revision. I applaud your efforts in creating a new meaning for a word over a couple of days, but until it has been in common use for some considerable period of time, it is inappropriate to include it in Wikipedia. Add it to one of those online slang dictionaries first. --Habap 6 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

• Whether this is an important social phenonmenon or a hoax, it obviously has some support behind it. Like it or not, "Greenlighting" is a topic of some significance in some way, and deserves a wikipedia article. Also, a great deal of hoaxes have wikipedia articles. (also see list of hoaxes). Cordell Walker 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Keep - this is an interesting case. The article itself, and the content therein, had a major effect on shutting down the hoax. The perpetrators basically folded after their scheme was revealed here. Despite that, the backers of this hoax are still attempting to control the content and existence of the article -O^O 6 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
• Delete, admitted neologism. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
• Keep, easily noteworthy enough to not bother deleting. --Trypa (talk) July 6, 2005 05:26 (UTC)
• Delete - Not only is this non-notable at best, there is something fishy going on with the voting. This page (seems) to alternate between protected and blank. Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)
• Wait and see. If this hoax gets picked up and widely circulated, it's something that people will be looking for authoritative information on, and WP ought to carry an explanation. If it never makes it into the public consciousness (defined, at a guess, as appearing on a well-viewed talk show or in a wire story picked up by multiple mainstream newspapers), but rather dies a merciful death, the article should die just as quickly. (I don't find the 'neologism' guideline to apply at the moment -- it's not an attempt to introduce the term, but a description of events relating to someone else's introduction.) eritain 6 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
  • Not appropiate/encyclopedic to have nonsense trivial articles in case something enters the Zeitgeist. (Refer to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The key word is extrapolation.) Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. I initially nominated it for VfD, but this will help dispell the hoax. -- BMIComp (talk)
  • I wanted to wait and see, and I have... but since this hasn't become too big, I vote to Delete. -- BMIComp (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia members have been whining for at least a year on how Something Awful is insignificant and doesn't even deserve its own article (see Talk:Something Awful forums), so why should this get an even bigger article?! Grievre 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
• Delete - somethingawfulcruft. -- Cyrius|✎ 6 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
• Delete, just because several Wikipedians frequent SA doesn't mean that this SA thread is notable here. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
• Delete - It doesn't seem to have gotten much attention outside of SA, the Metafilter discussions (apparently started by an SA member), and Wikipedia itself. The Kaycee Nicole hoax was much more widespread, and even it only has a stub. If it gets widespread media attention, it can be re-created at that point. Chuck July 6, 2005 14:45 (UTC)
• Keep - This article was a key part in eliminating the propagation of the hoax and is referenced on the hoax's index page as being so. This Wikipedia article stands as a pillar to eliminating the hoax and is a source of information for those looking to disprove the rumor. Also, there is no conclusive evidence that the MetaFilter poster was actually a member of the Something Awful forums. - Unsigned comment by 69.209.146.223

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). --Habap 6 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

That implies there are actually people looking for information to debunk the hoax. I have yet to see any evidence that the hoax has actually spread very far or has fooled any significant number of people. And no, there is no conclusive proof that the Metafilter poster is an SA member--which is precisely why I wrote "apparently started by an SA member," and not "started by an SA member." Chuck July 6, 2005 20:54 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm a SomethingAwful member, and I think this article is compeletely useless to Wikipedia. Their site is down now anyway. Spindle 6 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism/hoax. Starting to get some publicity. Take it down before anything mainstream picks it up.
• Delete, this would be much closer to helping spread a new hoax than it would be to reporting on an already notable hoax. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
• Delete vain neologism that is non-notable. Basically hoax-cruft with a bit of forum-cruft in the mix.-Splash 7 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)
• Delete because the hoax was insignificant as hoaxes go. It was only a 4-day hoax that received no major media attention. Bugmuncher 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable non-event. Tobycat 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Why? Why are so many of you so opposed to having this on wikipedia. Is it going to make your copy of the hardbound Wikipedia too thick? Is it going to slow down your internet surfing abilities? Greenlighting was important to us. We wanted to see just how much attention we could get by creating this, and we received quite a bit. I am sorry that some of you feel that this is non-notable, but we feel that it is. Actually, there is a community of over 50,000 that are aware of this hoax and a vast sum of them approved of it. I think it is important that it is documented so that people who find out about this at a later date, or people who want to find out what it was all about, or even people who want to find out if its a hoax or not, can found out exactly what happened. --Maiael 7 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence to back up your statements that it received much attention, or are the claims of the attention it received as made up as those of greenlighting itself? Chuck July 7, 2005 03:47 (UTC)
• I don't have access to the referrer logs as I am not the admin of greenlighter.org. Since I have no control over being able to prove how many sites linked to greenlighters.org, and the numerous, very very numerous, forum topics started about us, such as the pbonline forums, genmay, metafilter, and other big names, I guess there isn't much I can do other than argue here. So do whatever you want with the Wiki. It's not worth arguing with internet scholars anymore. I hope ya'll get paid for this.

we got over 2 million hits --Maiael 7 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

• Keep I mean c'mon.
• Strong Delete - Non-encyclopedic in a dozen different ways. "We wanted to see just how much attention we could get by creating this, and we received quite a bit." says it all. - Marvin01 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

This has become a true internet-based phenomenon. People are actually Greenlighting, kinda disturbing but people want to know how it got started. Toothing is still up, why not delete that, that was a hoax.

Right you are. Thanks for the cleanup idea - Vfd for Toothing Let's dispose of multiple weak hoaxes at once. --Habap 7 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, forum vanity. Quale 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Delete forum vanity. Almostnearly everything that goes on on internet forums like this is unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
• Delete failed forum hoax, doesn't really deserve an article. Jtkiefer July 7, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Marvin01. Dusik 8 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a quickly passing fashion.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.