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 KEEP. Postdlf 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ym!Eat your own poop. Weird - certainly NN - do we really need articles about defecating dogs and their owners? A curate's egg 15:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps notable for a Korean WP, but not an English one. Mildly amusing, but delete notwithstanding. Fire Star 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As for as I know that's not how notability works... we're Anglocentric enough, that policy would make us even moreso gren 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, that is emphatically not how notability works. Everyking 08:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Slac 16:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A valiant attempt, but even if a newspaper did mention it once, I don't find a dog pooping in the subway to be notable. Delete. Dcarrano 16:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable incident. SexyKappa 16:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and interesting, very well-known to Koreans. Anyway, if we have a place for the Star Wars kid, I think we should have a place for this. It demonstrates the power of the internet to spread information. We may want to retitle the page, however. Binadot 16:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability resides not in the incident but the phenomenon to which it gave rise. The references speak for themselves, IMO. -- Visviva 17:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep google confirms notability of the event. Seems rather silly, but it certainly is a footnote in the growth of Internet publishing as popular culture. -Harmil 17:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it should be a footnote in an article about Internet publishing as popular culture, then. --Tabor 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extensively covered by press and bloggers and fine Google presence. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Still, comparing this to Star Wars Kid isn't exactly meaningful. The Kid was not only covered by media and blogs but was also the subject of a lawsuit, several petitions and fansites. His notability is far much clearer even if you just check the links in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete or Merge to some site on internet shit like this (ok, bad pun). When all's said and done, a dog pooped on the subway. Big deal. Bloggers will write about anything, won't they. It's not like they're journalists or anything. -R. fiend 20:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. WTH is this? merge, merge with a larger internet artice like this one: List_of_shock_sites--Muchosucko 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons of notability demonstrated by press coverage and the powerful effect that blogging can have. Hall Monitor 23:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable incident publicised throughout the world. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedic article. And offer the lady in question some of our not-paper to help her in not cleaning up. -Splash 01:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Perhaps to be included as an aside within an article about the influence of blogs/new media/people power, but trivial non-articles such as this (and the Star Wars kid, plus every single lengthy article about the minutiae of the Star Wars/Trek universes, in my opinion) detract from Wikipedia. Jez 02:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If AYBABTU became a featured article, surely there's room for more Internet phenomenons. CanadianCaesar 02:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of owners around the world have pet dogs that poop in public places. Non notable even if it did enjoy its 15 minutes of fame in Korean. JamesBurns 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The incident is silly, the reaction is not. Ethan 04:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the Star Wars kid analogy fits well, reasonably notable. Xoloz 04:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Received media coverage in Korea and the west, interesting case of internet vigilanteism interacting with the real world (and South Korean culture in general). The trivial nature of the incident itself makes the result no less significant. Rankler 05:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what about that article is encylopedic? Does every news report get an article here? Vegaswikian 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just read the article for the first time and I feel that I've learned something notable and worthy. I fully suggest keeping.--SeizureDog 09:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons stated above. -- Lochaber 15:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep can we please be fair about this Yuckfoo 17:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't this be merged with Internet phenomena? Decapod73 17:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Visviva, Ethan, Rankler. The aftermath is the significance, so perhaps the article is mistitled but I can't think of another title that would be likely to be searched on. -EDM 01:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Interesting reflection of human desire for 'justice', 'revenge', or simple dogged group determination. Illustrates crossover between cyerspace and real. No chance of future namespace collision in wikispace. Poppafuze 06:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --seektime 10:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and edit on one hand it looks like a newpaper article, on the other if that is another meme...sort of, and it had consequences for the girl, which are not replicated by any other harmless internet phenomenon, AYBABTU had no vigilante guys banding on poor translator Gnomz007 05:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everyking 08:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at least the picture. Do we have the right to punish her (again) by posting the picture which contains her real face? (UTC)

Note: Above vote by 220.94.242.123.

• Keep. Significantly publisized event, even if it is non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Nasty Koreans don't have a right to be noted!!! Ignorance of them is the best option!! DELETE (helpful comment posted by 211.242.22.230)
• Delete, and firmly establish the precedent that being "extensively covered by press and bloggers and fine Google presence" does not suffice to make a subject encyclopedic. Star Wars kid should probably go the same way. - Mustafaa 21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE NN, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOT (I'll take my dog to poop on the train and I'll be in Wikipedia too?)--AI 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually go do that and then subsequently receive large amounts of attention in your country, are covered in the local and international press, then I don't see why not. --Rankler 04:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The importance of being John Daker. Ink 12:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do we really need/want an article on everything that ever showed up in the news or in the net? Is WP a jokes site? Or a blog? I sure hope not - Nabla 03:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Newsworthy because it illustrates the power of the internet mob when conflated with the ubiquity of cell phone cameras creating citizen photo journalists. Nonetheless, the picture clearly showing the subject's face should be removed because it puts Wiki in a position of harrassing the subject (vs reporting/documenting the event) and is unnecessary in conveying the story's message. The current picture also looks Photoshopped (unusually long middle digit). --Vineet KewalRamani 06:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As someone said once, these are the kinds of entries that make wikipedia so much more than an encarta clone. Interesting, if not always tasteful, articles about EVERYTHING notable... not just one person's concept of "appropriate". Themindset 06:14, 19 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.