Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Obvious

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Woohookitty 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Obvious

[edit]

Non-notable website attempting to create notoriety by creating a Wikipedia entry EdwinHJ | Talk 20:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A banal observation for one can be a breakthrough epiphany for another. The concept of the obvious blog cannot be so easily digested in a simple glance, and an entry such as this will perhaps motivate a better understanding of such experimental texts for all people alike. KeepingMyMindOpen (Unsigned vote by 129.219.83.141 (talk · contribs), only edits to this page)
  • Delete. Vanity/advertisement. Postdlf 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity cruft. -- Karada 22:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - Interesting entry of a public forum. No harm in this . It may grow if left to it's own devices .Doalch 00.30 July 20, 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Non-notable is subjective, perhaps the blog is pseudo-notable verging on neo-notability. As for the charge of vanity, ALL is vanity sayeth the preacher. (Unsigned vote by 69.234.183.166 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
    • Normally I wouldn't say anything as consensus has been clearly established, but just to answer this comment (which I found intresting). Pseudo is greek for false, therefore you just said the article is non-notable. Ergo, Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let it come back when 'obvious' is at least 'massive', if not 'mamoth'. Peter Ellis 04:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . And what if your mother had said " come back Peter when you are bigger " , until then I cannot accept you ? .Doalch 08.37 July 20, 2005 (GMT) (This vote actually by 84.9.35.171 (talk · contribs), only edits are to this page)
  • Strong delete, non-notable website plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 17:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Ever notice how these vanity editors always say the same thing and always make exactly the same argument: "It's not hurting anyone... just let it grow naturally... I have every right to parasitize your site... how would you like it if I were mean to you?... Wikipedia is stupid anyway..." We've seen it. Binadot 03:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Defense
Whether you believe the Totally Obvious deserves an entry in the Wikipedia depends on your conception of the Wikipedia. I'm sure conceptions of the Wikipedia are many and varied, but for the sake of my argument, let me draw a simple but useful dichotomy here.
If you think of the Wikipedia as a more or less informal communitarian reference work, you'd probably have no sustainable objection to including the entry here proposed. If, on the other, you see the Wikipedia in more possessive or rigid terms as an effort toward definitive epistemological excellence and authority -- the open source rival to the Encyclopedia Britannica -- then you're probably of the mind of many on this page to exclude it.
I happen to be of the more liberal camp here, as in many things, and even in spite of my patently interested position in the debate, I would endorse its inclusion on these philosophical grounds. Indeed, I find the position and the practices here demonstrated by those who have sought to exclude it rather misguided. For one things, it is contrary to the "public commons" spirit of the wikipedia as a whole and, in many cases, contrary to the spirit of their own arguably marginal contributions. Secondly, and more substantially, it establishes a false and unfitting expectation for the Wikipedia.
As a sometime college instructor of writing, I encourage my students to browse and read the Wikipedia freely in the course of their research -- especially their preliminary research -- of a subject. But I sternly advise them against citing it in their final papers or essays. Not that the information is inherently unreliable, but there are more reliable sources out there. Open markets have, under the right circumstances, a capacity for great wisdom. But they also have a tendency toward speculation, mania, and extremism -- all things that make the Wikipedia much more enjoyable reading than most traditional encyclopedias. Reputable, deliberately funded, professionally staffed journals and reference books have established their credibility in their field and they make it their reason-for-being to uphold that credibility. The two types of cultural production can certainly reinforce one another. But it would advance the debate here, I believe, if their different roles were not confused.
This is not to say outright trivia, libel, slander, vandalism, hate-mongering, or incoherence have any place here. But a casual perusal of the Totally Obvious should reassure a fair-minded viewer that, while it may be irrevent, ramshackle, and novel, it rises above that more minimal standard for relevance and is worthy of the namespace here requested for it.
But put aside these philosophical arguments and let us focus on the practical merits of the case at hand. Objections or votes in favor of deleting the Totally Obvious entry have been justified on the following grounds:
1. It's nonsense.
Rebuttal: This is an invidious and almost wholly unsubstantiated claim. As noted above, a casual investigation of the Totally Obvious should satisfy a reasonable person that there is some sense behind: a sense of humor, a sense of the absurd, a literary sensibility, a political sensibility -- there is much sense in it.
2. It's promotional
Rebuttal: This can be said of every entry as any entry in the Wikipedia that includes external links -- or refers to external events! -- is liable to the same charge. I would guess that the blog has done more to promote the Wikipedia than the Wikipedia has done -- or will ever do -- to promote the blog. Moreover, even if this were a motivation driving its original submission to the Wikipedia, it is not a primary one. As one voter suggests above, this might even be looked upon favorably as a singular and creative application of the Wikipedia as a gateway for public recognition and public evaluation. If it is ultimately frivolous or transient, let it moulder away in its namespace --or, more in the spirit of things, be overshadowed and pushed down the page by more substantive claims to its namespace.
3. It's a joke
Rebuttal: I take this objection as having something to do with either the way it is represented in its entry or with the thing itself. That the thing itself might be light-hearted, irreverent, predominantly comical spirit is no real claim against its inclusion here. If the objection is against the tone and terms with which it has been represented, that may be emended easily enough, without exterminating the thing altogether.
4. A violation of procedure
I can offer no defense of the pranksters and vandals who have injected themselves into this debate other than to say their efforts have been pretty harmless thus far.
I recognize that those who oppose inclusion of the Totally Obvious here in the Wikipedia on institutional ground probably do so out of the noblest reasons. But in doing so, they make us all victims of that inexorable law governing unintended consequences. In positing themselves as dogmatic guardians of the integrity and civility of the community, they have introduced the most negative and unnecessary emotions to the matter. And in trying to preserve their own particular vision of the Wikipedia, they have ended up, in an admittedly very minor way, undermining it by making it smaller than it need be. It's the Wikipedia, not the Cliquipedia. If you want to establish small coteries of like-minded individuals who share your tastes and would suppress that which challenges your views or vision, I'd strongly recommend setting up a blog.
Newpoete 08:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above user, Newpoete is likely a sock/meat puppet, as its first and only contributions are to this vote, see [1] EdwinHJ | Talk 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I AM NOT A SOCK/MEAT PUPPET! I AM A HUMAN BEING! Besides, that's ad hominem and utterly beside the point. Newpoete 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That actually is not an ad hominem attack, because I am not insulting you or demeaning you. You created your account for the purpose of voting on this VfD page, that is the definition of a meatpuppet:
...When non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common on Votes for Deletion. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.
EdwinHJ | Talk 21:43, 22 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Totally_Obvious&oldid=1138880534"