Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

message: I noticed that in the restructuring of the votes, a large section of comments made by myself, Fan1967 among others have been removed. Would someone kindly add them back here. I believe it is influential to the discussion as it regards different opinions of verifiability, notable sources, etc. -- Evanx(tag?) 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they haven't been removed. They were moved to the AfD's talk page, where they belong, as was noted above. GassyGuy 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was confused. -- Evanx(tag?) 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone else is confused like me, the comments are here. -- Evanx(tag?) 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the re-direct, it should be appropriate and keeps the issue simpler. -- Evanx(tag?) 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTM that the main concern isn't simple verifiability.  I assume millions of minorly valuable items are stolen each year; probably billions, worldwide.  I have no idea what percentage have police reports, but presumably quite a lot.  Most actual, provably true, thefts are distinctly non-notable. LotLE×talk 00:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: the mentioned article is currently under AfD; it has not been closed as either keep or delete.  I actually voted delete over there; but AfD's are not a quid-pro-quo where if one article has a given result some other must have a given result by some sort of logical implication. LotLE×talk 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From discussion footer 

message: Every point made to delete this article may be entirely valid, but they are also entirely premature. Keeping it while its significance can be assessed, and while it is a "current event" does not detriment Wikipedia in the least. Deleting a new article many new users would be interested in reading, does. - RoyBoy 800 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My the time this AfD concludes, the subject will have been forgotten, for the most part.  (It's still a lousy title.  If kept, it shoudl be renamed without redirect.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by forgotten you mean lose popularity, then I'd agree, but forgotten as in a trivial distraction... I highly doubt it. Memes such as this get traction for reasons that go beyond amusement; this isn't in the realm of a chain letter you smile about then delete. I disagree with renaming it (although SideKick 2 is free), and having no redirect is out of the question. People cut and paste their searches all the time. - RoyBoy 800 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature AfD 

message: A mention on the New York Times. I hope readers keeping up to this will realise the article changes and updates to bring it up to standard. -- Evanx(tag?) 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. - RoyBoy 800 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong source 

message: Is there any particular reason why my comment on the main page was DELETED? Alyeska 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean this one?  If so, that was on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolensidekick, not this page. -- Vary | Talk 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A second VFD in a week...  I naturaly assumed the VFD linked to the mainpage was the same one.  Never seen VFDs go this fast before. Alyeska 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a second one, really: the two articles and their AFD's were started a few hours apart, and Stolensidekick was speedily redirected to How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 to consolidate discussion. -- Vary | Talk 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: This isn't to question whether or not WP should carry the article (I voted delete, just as a disclosure of bias), but out of general curiosity? Who cares? Not Wikipedia, but the media. SO WHAT? Some chick lost her Sidekick, and someone found it and used it. I'm sure this isn't the first time it's happened. So just because some twit posted the thief's info online, it's suddenly a headline-worthy story on /.? I mean, that's not why I said delete, but honestly...I just don't get it... -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Internet vigilantism. -- Evanx(tag?) 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Question... 

message: Well, this is a sad outcome. Most of the voters don't seem to have been aware that this story was featured in the NY Times, even though that was repeatedly mentioned. Apparently a lot of people just have some sort of reflexive bias against "Internet memes" and no amount of logic can penetrate that bias. We've kept many, many articles on subjects not notable enough to be featured in the NY Times. Everyking 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reference mentioned in the discussion is . It is not only not about the Sidekick II incident, it does not even mention that incident. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still weighing whether to take this to DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please inform me when you do. I have saved a backup copy of the article at User:Evanx/Backup. Please amend that copy when there are updates. I was the original editor and am sorely disappointed by the outcome. Since the primary reason for deletion was either non-notability or unverifiable sources, I had felt I addressed those issues fairly by the reports from reputable online sources. There is even a NYPD case number and I cannot understand why it is non-verifiable. As for non-notability, it passes the Google test easily and is mentioned on many journals, both academic and personal. -- Evanx(tag?) 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: New York Times full page article with picture at their page. Situation resolved. -- Evanx(tag?) 04:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You might as well take it to deletion review badlydrawnjeff.  When it was nominated I think it quite easily qualified as an event that fell below a reasonable threshold for inclusion, at least in my opinion (disclaimer: I don't consider the "Google test" or alexa rankings to be worth anything).  The full page NYT article with pic at least gives it a good media referencethat is non-trivial in nature.  IMO, this article should have never been created when it was because until the more recent media coverage it had very little verifiable, reliable source material to back it up... and  It's still way to early to call it a meme.--Isotope23 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am considering the option but am quite appalled by the number of users who have voted Delete without actually reading the article itself to ascertain the quality, nor have they checked the references to affirm the validity, both points of non-notability and non-verifiability which I had addressed. -- Evanx(tag?) 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, my delete vote had nothing at all to do with article quality or interest level in the story (I find the story fascinating and have been following/blogging it from the beginning), it simply had to do with the fact that, in my opinion, there simply was not enough verifiable media coverage at the time of the AfD to support an article.  Since close of AfD and additional coverage, you may have a stronger case.  I don't put much stock in WP:MEME because it is a proposed guideline and personally I don't like applying guidelines that have not met community consensus, but that is just a preference on my part.  Besides, I still think it is too early to tag it as a meme.  Regardless, with additional sources you should be able to make a pretty good case for undeletion in deletion review.  It's worth a shot anyway if you feel strongly that this should be listed.--Isotope23 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your stand. I am hoping that I could garner some support to resurrect the article. If you could help me with it, I would appreciate the gesture greatly. -- Evanx(tag?) 06:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment On his site, didn't he say he was doing a morning show about this, then he was done with media interviews etc...  After that airs I think there will be sufficient media mention (especially if he was talking national... GMA, Today, etc.) to merit a run at undeletion.--Isotope23 13:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sad outcome

message: Under current guidelines, of Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, I believe there may be grounds under which this article can continue to exist under Wikipedia:Notability (memes) and WP:V. -- Evanx(tag?) 02:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the DRV is up at the moment, no one seems convinced though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you link it? -- Evanx(tag?) 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#How_NOT_to_steal_a_SideKick_2 --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have formed my defence of the article. There are several factors in favour, that of all previous concerns being met and thus the fulfilment of the Wikipedia requirements. I think you may have provided a less able New York Times article which led to an early spew of Keep Deletion. The one in my backup referred to a full page article. I have already included it there although it may be too late. I have also raised the issue of the impartial-bility of the administrator and his conduct. -- Evanx(tag?) 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounds for undeletion