Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Titor (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Titor

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
John Titor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some random person's online hoax propped up on a mass of references to fringe websites and internet forums. Entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- While we're waiting for the nominator to supply a reason for deletion that's actually applicable, I see nothing deletable about the article. Its not the greatest, but it certainly seems reasonable to keep. FYI- Since it had been through a deletion process before, PROD can not be used. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previous AfD not properly listed on article or talk page. Became aware of it after contesting of PROD. Reasons provided entirley valid. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . This guy gets trotted out every time someone wants to mock the internet, so there should be plenty of vcoverage out there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has received some attention from mainstream sources [1], [2], although not as much as I would have expected. Zagalejo^^^ 17:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently well-circulated hoax that has enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Besides, I checked with John and he says the article will survive until the 5th AFD in the spring of 2012, so we don't need to waste time on this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Too many big names in the media coverage. K2709 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak keep on the basis of the minor media coverage. I agree with nominator that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and if he can come up with a convincing argument for deletion per policy I'll happily reconsider. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it attracts fringey people, I've heard it discussed on the radio. The article even establishes notability by noting some of the non-internet attention it's gotten. To respond to the nominator's listed reasons:
    • WP:NOTGUIDE item 3 says articles shouldn't "exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website." Since this article isn't about a website, it doesn't apply.
    • WP:INDISCRIMINATE item 1 says articles on fictional works shouldn't consist largely of plot summary. Since the article in question does discuss impact, this isn't really a problem. Even if it were, because we can reduce plot summary and expand reception, this should never be a reason to delete.
    • WP:INDISCRIMINATE item 4 is about covering something just because it's in the news. That's not what's happening here so it doesn't apply.
    • WP:MADEUP is, explicitely, about not writing content about things you yourself have made up but that aren't verifiable (it is not, as you seem to think, about things that are not true). Since there are outside sources for this, this also doesn't apply. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A hoax, but enough reliable sources to show it's a notable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is very notable hoax. Some hoaxes do indeed need to be kept as reference material for help in identifying future hoaxes, as well as distinguishing hoaxes from non-hoaxes. Consequently, this one belongs here on Wikipedia. Tangurena (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources in the article may not be top-notch, but a quick scan through the Google News results linked above finds coverage in The Guardian[3] and Wired[4], and The Times reporting that John Titor was the subject of a segment in Horizon, the BBC's flagship science documentary TV series[5]. The Google Scholar results look fascinating, with, according to the search result listing, the subject being mentioned in an article by one A. Einstein (which would mean that he travelled a bit further back in time than described in our article) and in an article about Luther Blissett, who I, as a Watford supporter, regard as something of a hero. It turns out that the first of these is a misattribution by Google Scholar[6] and the second[7] is a product of this distinctly unreliable outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are far less notable and encyclopedia worthy pages whose status are not contested. I don't want to seem like I am using the existence of those pages as a means of justification, but I think this subject just passes the required level of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watto the jazzman (talk • contribs) 08:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known enough that it should be kept for its cultural reference. Would we kill a page on the balloon boy's family because it was a hoax? This was a story relevant enough to warrant coverage in major media. (MaxPhd)(talk) 12:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're showing a gross misunderstanding of policy and you're not convincing anybody by ignoring rebuttals. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply since John Titor doesn't appear in just one news article and doesn't constitute "routine news coverage." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that last comment was a direct response to MaxPhd's enquiry regarding the {not in a} balloon boy. I would delete a page on his family on the basis of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS if the news coverage of the hoax was the only point of notability. I've already resigned myself to the fact that Wikipedia will continue to be marred by the presence of a page on this farcical hoax. Oh well... there is also a page for lolcats so I guess I shouldn't be suprprised that another piece of online drivel gets inclusion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I stand corrected. I misread your post as talking about both Titor and BB. I'm not sure if you know this, but WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fully aware. And I stand by my original reasoning. Fact is that others disagree. This sometimes happens. That is why we use the consensus model. The fact that I also happen to strongly dislike the article is secondary in my mind. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But none of your reasons actually relate to the article (see my rebuttal above). This is what I was talking about when I said you don't seem to understand the policies you cite. This is why simply citing general policies doesn't stand in for reasoning. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Titor_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1070987424"