Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Sheer numbers, ignoring anonymous and new voters would be "no consensus", but I hope I'm not risking my reasonably new and recallable adminship by marking it Keep from reading the arguments instead of counting votes here. There seems to be a cult following from the sheer number of Google hits, a sixth of a documentary film, and a few articles from reliable sources, such as the Washington Times, and an NBC station. (It would be nice if the Washington Times ref were added to the article.) True, the articles are primarily about the doll, but only by a narrow margin; he's the sole creator, and the articles don't just mention him in passing, they devote a noticeable part of their length to interviewing him. That's not worldwide fame, but it's enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Bob Smith

edit
Normal Bob Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 20:06Z

The admin closing this discussion might be interested in reading this discussion, which started on November 9 and seems to have ended on November 19, the day before the article was created. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Djudge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Elektrared (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bob Smith is indeed a controversial figure. However, he is also a culturally relevant person, and so his article should be kept. This has been the accepted method taken with other internet personalities. For example, Sean Riley and George Ouzanian, AKA Seanbaby and Maddox, respectively, have Wikipedia pages. Bob Smith is as famous as either of these two. This article should not have been deleted in the first place.--Juppongatana 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Juppongatana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Chisrule (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Sceptic Watcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria for keeping this article has been met. I don't see why this is such an issue, unless one objects to the subject matter itself, which can be seen as disrespectful and controversial -- and deleting it on that issue would constitute censorship. Chompsillisay 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Chompsillisay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— 65.125.163.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that my account is no sockpuppet of anyone. I only now did start to work on the english wikipedia, but if you are so distrustful, you can look for my account Skeptischer Beobachter in the german wikipedia, where I work on articles about Tibetan Buddhism since about two months. I think before you make such accusations, you should have a way to verify them. With the very same right, I could assume that you are a sockpuppet. Sceptic Watcher 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is accusing you of anything. Slgrandson spoke of sockpuppets and SPAs (link and italics added by me). Fact of the matter is that you only have three edits, two of which are to this AfD and the other one being to the article's talk page. In such cases, it is within the discretion of the closing admin to discount such votes. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I was not aware of the meaning of that abbreviation and unfortunately did not find it. That's why I was only answering to the sockpuppet-part. It may indeed be possible that my account will be a SPA - I don't know yet if I will also work on Tibetan Buddhism and Atheism here. Sceptic Watcher 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the main reason for deleting this article now is not for lack of relevance but because is was deleted before. According to the rules it can't be simply recreated. The deletion can be reviewed and if there is support the admins can undelete the original article. I think this is a good point. My question for the experienced editors: can we ask for a review of the deletion and does support from ASP's for undeletion count? --Djudge 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can request a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Whether new users are in good faith or single purpose accounts has to be determined case by case. Whether their opinions are counted (AfD is not a vote) has to be determined by the closing admin. If the new users come with good arguments and make valid points, their opinions will be taken into consideration. But if they simply stuff the ballot, their votes are usually discounted. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've made several edits to philosophy/religion articles. I do not see the reason why this article is being considered "irrelevant". No reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.82.113 (talk • contribs)
— 74.12.82.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— 71.237.68.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment. I would like to remind everyone to debate whether the article should be included from fundamentals such as notability, verifiability, media references; does the subject meet WP:BIO? Arguments about "recreation without DRV" don't apply because this article is very different from the previous version (which was 1 sentence during the previous AFD), most likely created by different users; the previous AFD was hardly a concensus at 2 delete "votes" followed by 1 keep "vote". —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 20:11Z
  • Keep Normal Bob Smith has made the news on a few occasions now. He made it when he was dealing with Urban Outfitters and his magnet set, he made it when his website was shut down by religious organizations, he made it when he did some work for Heavy.com and the Mel Gibson Dress-Up - how many times must someone be news before they become noteworthy? He's a major player in the atheist community and has been a topic speaker at atheist conventions. He's been part of a documentary. Controversy and infamy should be sufficient for a Wikipedia article. More specifically, the article doesn't violate any of the Wikipedia rules featured at WP:NOT (Specifically point 5 of "Indiscriminate collection of information"), since the article addresses the cultural impact of Bob's website projects, not the websites themselves. I wholeheartedly think that this article has the notability and verifiability that Wikipedia demands of its articles. As for the implied WP:SPA, the SPA also advises "to assume good faith" - this is the case where I think good faith is in order. Audiolight 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC) — Audiolight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep - I would normally cry "delete" at anything supported by so many SPA's, but I put a little more effort into reviewing this. The subject is a controversial public figure and "Normal Bob Smith" (with quotes around it) yielded approx 39,000 ghits. Those numbers, and the articles written about him (rather than by him) imply a level of notability that justifies keeping this. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - If you omit his own sites, the count drops by a few thousand, but it's still around 36,300. Is that google count enough to indicate notability by itself? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - ghits are a rule-of-thumb tool, and there is no hard and fast threshhold either way. However, the cites indicate that he was the proximate cause of multiple organized protests which were themselves newsworthy events. In other words, he generated enough controversy that independent groups around the country staged protests against him. I gave more weight to that than the ghits alone, since that level of controversy and coverage certainly seems notable. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he evidently has some notoriety per Doc Tropics and others. There is no doctrine of res judicata with AfDs, though there is a rule of thumb that running a second AfD soon after one has failed is an abuse of process. In this case, the last AfD was a successful one but a long time ago with an article in a different form. In the absence of some special reason for salting, nothing prevents the creation of a new article on the same subject matter or requires that any such article be deleted. Metamagician3000 23:50, 22 November 2006 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Normal_Bob_Smith_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136109269"