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. I'm closing this per SNOW, despite one delete vote (from before significant expansion). Nominator's argument for deletion appears to be taken care of. Discussions about renaming or merging can take place afterwards. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titstare[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable application, notable for a brief flurry of news. any evidence it actually exists? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can't be both nonnotable and notable. I'd also support a rename to "Titstare controversy." betafive 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: briefly noted, not really notable (as an app or company). However, i do understand that a rename would at least work better. the controversy did get some coverage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Titstare is notable due to the widespread coverage of the controversy its announcement spurred; a cursory google search indicates there are far more articles covering it than are cited here. Whether the app itself existed/exists, or whether the development company is notable, is irrelevant. betafive 04:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just read the only references: this isn't a thing, this was a joke ("Just a fun Aussie hack"). People who were there commented on it; it has had no life since. Are we now going to start articles for jokes which have not (yet?) become cultural phenomena? To my way of thinking that would mean Wikipedia is itself somehow just repeating jokes: is that what is meant by encyclopaedic? Testbed (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a PS to my comment above (which was for Delete) I have now read the New York Times piece, not referenced in the article. It strikes me that there would seem to be a need for including this episode in some article on gender and programming, for example by adding it as a case history to Women in computing. Then if a number of notable examples get added, one could spin off an article listing them, of which Titstare would be one. Just a thought. Testbed (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is Titstare about "Women in computing?" You're neglecting to consider that not all people with tits are women (which is a form of transmisogyny) and delegitimizing the experience of the people this app was targeting: those who stare at tits (who are predominantly, but not entirely, men.) betafive 05:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear. Here is why I made the suggestion for one way to resolve this (the headline is a clue). No doubt there are other better ways. I'll move on now. Testbed (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testbed, you were not unclear at all. How this is not an issue related to women in computing is anyone's guess, and Betafive's reverse charge of transmisogyny should be on a list of dumb things. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger-happy deletionism. Plenty of sources worldwide in major publications. A little review, possibly contacting the article creator and looking at the talk page either WP:BEFORE or at least after nominating a new article for deletion, please? I checked before starting the article that mainstream major media reliable sources are still discussing this a year later.[1][[2] The notability is for being a piece of Internet culture, not as an app. As for why the article is named after the app, not coining a name for the controversy, that has to do with WP:COMMONNAME and other MOS issues. If someone adds a "gate" and the name sticks, we can use that name. TitStare Boob Controversy would not e a good name. - Wikidemon (talk)-

Just to be clear, your !vote is for...? betafive 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, as I said on the article's talk page, is that this seems a case of WP:109PAPERS. But since there has been a fair bit of material written about the incident, rather than inundate the parent conference/company page with a deluge of opinion snippets from all the talking heads, creating a separate page for it might be a more sensible solution. I don't care to expand this article myself though. I should note that a scandal of smililar of even bigger proportions, Donglegate, only has a small section in another general article on Internet activism. Perhaps a similar home can be found for Titstare too, if we do have an article on sexism controversies in tech or something like that. (There was no hacktivism related to Tistare that I know of, so placing it where Donglegate sits is not suitable.) JMP EAX (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:109PAPERS is a personal opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When the two footnotes showing are substantial coverage from The Guardian and The New Yorker, we are already done, per WP:GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor nomination, wp:BEFORE apparently not performed. AFD nominations just to try to force article improvement are disruptive...I am not sure if this is an example of that, but this is a matter of concern if there is a pattern in the nominator's AFD noms. --do ncr am 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THERE is NO such pattern to my noms. please dont assume bad faith. if i didnt do a Before, I apologize. i really try to. my reaction was that this doesnt even exist. i now agree that the controversy exists, so im willing to admit my initial rationale was not relevant, and that the debate here is only about whether the controversy is notable. please dont conclude that i am a wild eyed deletionist. im not. i have helped numerous afd's to be better sourced. I sometimes wonder if people realize how hurtful it is to called names online. I am just a volunteer here, if people dont want me to work here, they can run me out of town any time. My wife would be happy if i stopped, so maybe a preemptive block on the assumption that i may one day be a problem here would be a useful step. do we have such a tool? that could be really handy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've expanded the piece. This was also covered in the national magazine Mother Jones as Beyond Titstare: 8 Other Tech Event Moments That Were Super Awkward for Women. Copious other sources out there. A pretty easy and obvious GNG Keep, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once notable, then something will almost always be notable. This thing passes WP:42. "Wikipedia is not censored." Bearian (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I have added another source to the article. This was covered by The New York Times, too. I think this could be retitled as "Titstare controversy", but the controversy is certainly notable. The app? Not entirely sure. This can be solved through an rename discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2014 (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.