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 Redirect to Internet_vigilantism#Dog_Poop_Girl. Never mind all the circular arguments about BLP and BLP1E, what it boils down to is that this news story - and that is exactly what it is (WP:NOT#NEWS anyone)? isn't notable enough to stand as an individual article. In the Internet vigilantism article, however, it works fine. I haven't deleted the history, so anything else that people would like to move over to the other article is there, but I'd suggest that people don't try to recreate this article in the other one. A certain level of detail is fine. Black Kite 10:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Non-notable, single event internet meme. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not surprised it was a contested prod: it's been nominated (and kept) three times already. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While consensus might chance, the nominator gave no argument as to why the previous outcome shouldn't stand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP1E. Any arguments for keeping it because it's a "meme" don't really work after the Boxxy afd. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Boxxy article was deleted because it lacked reliable sources. The references for that article were all blogs, which don't qualify. If this article had the same problems I'd be advocating its deletion as well, however this article has such sources as The Washington Post and New York Times. -- Atama^chat 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When you get into newspaper blogs, they move away from the traditional meaning of "blog" and towards an editorial piece. I specifically remembering it appearing in print media. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sourced article for a notable event; notability is not temporary. No sound argument for deletion has been presented. PC78 (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  BLP. We need to write articles about people (what this ostensibly is) with respect to their privacy. Even if no-one else did. As it stands, this person is notable for only one event. It's simply a BLP with frilly little bit reaction pieces. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's patently not a biography article; it doesn't even name the person. BLP does not apply here. PC78 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I voted to keep this way back in 2006, but it doesn't fit our community standards currently in light of BLP. Perhaps some aspects could be merged into other articles though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It is sourced and it is a notable event. Three nominations and counting...Smallman12q (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable event Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Washington Post article is especially convincing. This person isn't really notable for a single event, they are notable for the reaction and international discussion that event generated. Is it really fair this is up for deletion for a 4th time? --Boston (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see no guideline that limits the amount of times an article can be nominated. I suspect the list of AfD's for this article may keep growing until it eventually gets deleted. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • regardless of article merit, that would an inappropriate use of AfD. After only 4 nominations, given a 20% variation in results, there's over a 50% chance of deleting anything. DGG (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you have misunderstood me, I'm not saying that I am going to keep renominating it, its just that I feel that its likely to be renominated multiple times. This certainly won't be the last AfD for this article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the reason for renomination is based on recent AfDs for similar articles that seem to indicate that the community's values for this kind of article have changed. I felt, given concerns (raised by someone on my talk page) that this is not-notable and a single-event internet meme, it doesn't really meet our inclusion guidelines. In short, I disregarded the previous AfDs because I felt that consensus on this topic might have changed. I think the discussion should stick to the article and its notability, not on the procedural point of whether it was ok to nominate it again 9-10 months after the last AfD. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep, discussed in the New York Times along with other WP:RS. [1] Sticky Parkin 17:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Single event coverage. Perhaps article title should be salted too. tedder (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why suggest delete and link to a policy statement that clear states "Notability is not temporary"? --neon white talk 23:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no need to keep having this discussion, WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED clearly applies here and the previous AfDs should stand until something actually changes.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - well if more notable things the YouTube cat abuse incident and Boxxy got deleted, and the even more notable an hero is protected from recreation, then this article is likely not notable enough. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unfamiliar with the details about Boxxy, but the deletion of the cat incident was a clear BLP violation because it focused on the negative actions of a minor. Nearly all the sources mentioned his name and he was the target of 4chan and others who have sworn to hunt the kid down and avenge the cat. That's clearly a case where privacy should be our primary concern. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see WP:OCE.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The guidelines about avoiding people famous for a single event are very important and useful but we have to consider the amount of discussion that event generates in academic/intellectual circles. Crispus Attucks is only famous for a single event as well, but we wouldn't send him to AfD. --Boston (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment let's see the intro of the compared article. Crispus Attucks (c. 1723 – March 5, 1770) was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre in Boston, Massachusetts. He has been frequently named as the first martyr of the American Revolution and is the only Boston Massacre victim whose name is commonly remembered. He is regarded as an important and inspirational figure in American history.. You got a wrong example.--Caspian blue 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am hardly numb to the gravity of what Attucks represents versus the banality of what Dpg represents. But it's still an excellent illustrative example. All we really know about Attucks is that he caught a bullet. Attucks' notability comes entirely from later discussion of that one brief event. Look at the words in the quote you use..."frequently named"..."commonly remembered"..."he is regarded"...and the rest of the article is the same. He was at the wrong place at the the right time; the subsequent discussion made him notable. --Boston (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has mention in major newspapers around the world. This is a notable event. Dream Focus 01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mixed opinions on keeping it. But as to renaming: Per the article discussion page, the more literal translation would be Dog shit girl, not really much of an improvement. If kept, the focus must be on the internet vigilantism and not on the individual. Edison (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty focused on that to me. Aside from the explaination of the incident which is necessary, the rest is about the reaction on the internet and media. --neon white talk 23:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How would the literal translation be the word "shit"? The word I assume is Korean or something for feces. The word "shit" carries with it a large number of different meanings including: feces, stuff, garbage, good stuff, something amazing, etc. -- so it's different than a generic word for feces. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Washington Post [2] article uses the "loosely translated" term "Dog Poop Girl" (note capitalization) while the New York Times article [3] says "'dog poop girl,' also known as the 'puppy poo girl,'". It seems we should follow the lead of these major English language newspapers. BTW, did anyone notice that New York Times also notes "On Wikipedia there's already a 'dog poop girl' entry logged, and a movement to delete it" ? --Boston (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination obviously fails WP:BEFORE as there are obvious places one might merge this rather than delete it such as Internet vigilantism and the attempt to PROD the article shows a lack of attention to the numerous previous discussions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason for deletion given in the nomination. Event is obviously notable with sourced coverage clear in the article. Suggest reading deletion policy in future. --neon white talk 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, the featured girl considered committing suicide many times, and the one-time incident that occurred in South Korea about 3 and half years ago is notable enough to keep as an "article page"? Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS but encyclopedia-Caspian blue 23:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteIt's something you'd find under "Weird News". The Four Deuces (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Let us pause to examine policy in this area.
  • WP:NOT#NEWS establishes that articles must have "historic notability"
  • WP:N establishes that "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."

This article does not demonstrate any historic notability. It is merely news based on a short burst of news reports about a single event. It fits exactly with the pattern of things that should not be on wikipedia according to our own policies and guidelines. (FWIW, reference 9 starts to comes near to historic notability - at least someone has reflected on the incident. Were there more coverage in the article of the reaction or even interest after 2005, the article might qualify for historical notability. Meanwhile some of the content could be merged into Internet vigilantism, which would be a better fit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The content here already exists as a subsection of that article Fritzpoll (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A brief summary, linking to the full article, exist in Internet vigilantism. If the information is relevant, and won't fit on one page, then you make a side page for it, a separate article. Dream Focus 10:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite - all the information specific to this incident is on Internet vigilantism, from description of the incident to her quitting the university, to the fact that there was media reaction to the effect of the vigilatism. There is nothing here to merge because it is all already in the body of the more appropriate article. The sources in internet vigilatism might be different, but the content is essentially the same Fritzpoll (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - No it isn't. The Internet vigilantism article summarizes information found in this article. To say that "all of it" is in the body of the article is misleading. Have you compared them? -- Atama^chat 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yep. In my view the substance is the same, even if this current article is more verbose in saying it. I gain no additional information from the article than I do from the subsection. I am aware that this is subjective, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Internet vigilantism per BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. Does not fulfill "historic notability" requirement and all relevant information is already contained within Internet vigilantism, making this article redundant and unnecessary. Adam Zel (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those policies apply to this article. It is neither a bio nor a news event. --neon white talk 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of room for improvements, but notable nonetheless.Unionsoap (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If you read WP:BLP1E (which multiple people are claiming as a reason to delete this article) it states that a biographical article should not be created for a person who is notable for a single event. Rather, it states that you should "cover the event, not the person". That is being done here. This article is not about the person, it does not even name her or give any information about the person other than information relevant to the event itself, the article is about the event that took place and the consequences of such event (this is explicitly stated in the introduction). Since this is not a biographical article any suggestions of deletion based on WP:BLP are as invalid as deleting the NASCAR article for the same reasons. Aside from that, the article is shown to be notable by citing reliable sources that verify what is in the article. It was a mistake to nominate this article for deletion in the first place. Perhaps a merge to the article on Internet vigilantism (if all information is preserved without expanding that article too far), but there hasn't been a single viable justification for a deletion given yet. -- Atama^chat 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the guidelines at WP:MERGE, i don't think any of the reasons for merging that are listed can be applied to this article. --neon white talk 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be merged, then I'd say to leave it be. Deleting it doesn't seem justified by policy. -- Atama^chat 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No need to merge what is already there: Internet_vigilante#Dog_Poop_Girl. That would make this article a dupe would it not? WikiScrubber (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Fails WP:SBST miserably, not historically notable (WP:NOTNEWS) and extremely unlikely to result in secondary stories or precedent (WP:News articles). Dupe of information already in internet vigilante so no merge necessary. If the serious crime covered in YouTube cat abuse incident (which received extensive international coverage) is not clearly notable even on review then this "man bites dog" filler story certainly isn't. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SBST. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out countless times, this is not a bio article so WP:ONEEVENT is irrelevant. Notability policy also states 'notability is not temporary' and 'there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic', as this was considered notable at the time and in 3 subsequent afds, it cannot simply become non-notabile because more time has passed. --neon white talk 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Smallman12q's & Atama's reasoning. Naufana : talk 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT etc. my understanding of the English language is that the subject of the article is actually the girl ("dog poop" is an identifier/adjective) and her [in]action. The purpose of WP:BLP is to avoid defamation and whether explicitly named or not the individual is readily identifiable from the information presented. As such I'd say all the votes citing BLP* are absolutely valid. WikiScrubber (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the EFF: "To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president." WikiScrubber (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Decided Keep of this odorferous article. The article is about an event and its many repercussions, and uses as article name, the "name" given the event in sources. The article is about the event and its repercussions, not about the woman. The woman discussed became herself a public figure when she personally made a public apology. So covering her (in)actions, the public's outcry, the subsequent results, and her public aplogy is not a BLP violation... no more than an article about Mark David Chapman is a violation. And it does demonstrate hitorical notability as shown by its multiple sources... heck, I love that the failed 2005 deletion effort itself even made the news: New York Times. To those quoting WP:NOT#NEWS, it has to be remembered that if it happened today or yesterday, it was news.... but if it happened 4 or 5 or 20 or 50 years ago, it has become history and can be treated properly in retrospect. Point here being is that wikipedia depends quite heavily on "news" as sources for its articles. Nearly everything within these pages was "news" at one time or another. The goal here is to give balanced coverage of a subject and source back to reliable sources... and that has been done. And to thos faling back on WP:ONEEVENT as an argument, this is not a BLP and ONEEVENT does not apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's kind of a weak argument to compare this article to Mark David Chapman. The latter killed one of the United Kingdom's most famous musicians. The former... let her dog shit on a floor. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just an example or how "one event" as news has ramifications that become historic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually quite bad taste to even suggest the two are in the same league. BLP exists to mitigate the risk of defamation which is still clearly present here, per above. There has been no secondary analysis whatsoever and no precedent set - it's obviously ephemeral. WP:BLP (WP:BLP1E) applies. WP:NOTNEWS (WP:SBST) applies. And if you're going to use big words to bolster your argument be sure to spell them correctly: it's odoriferous. What's a 'decided keep' when it's at home anyway? WikiScrubber (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for correcting my spelling. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bio article. How many times does that need to be pointed out? The subject of the article is a serious of events not a person. The lead clearly states that. It is better to compare it to Death of John Lennon, that article is not about John Lennon and not about Mark Chapman, but about events they were both involved in. It would be ridiculous and incorrect to judge the notability of that article using Wikipedia:Notability_(people). The same applies to this article. --neon white talk 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Its not about WP:PEOPLE, its about WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the examples coming guys, you're cracking me up. So far we've seen a four year old dog shit compared to murderer Mark David Chapman, murdered Crispus Attucks and the Death of John Lennon. And you guys are actually serious too which makes it all the more hilarious. Apparently some of you believe that inserting the word "incident" into the lede makes this article less about the girl and more about the shit but others of us (including the article title I might add) don't concur. None of you have felt it necessary to explain how this article is somehow immune to the defamation problems that WP:BLP exists to avoid given its victim is readily identifiable (including from the references) and until you do, so far as I'm concerned this falls squarely under the WP:BLP policy irrespective of how you reword it. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and covered in RS. I fluffed the wp:lede a bit. -- Banjeboi 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with other editors that this sort of thing should feature in Wikinews. Some of the stuff might be salvageable for the internet vigilantism article, however. --Sloane (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Further non-news sources. The incident is mentioned in several books and a paper, one published 2 years after the event suggesting lasting significance and putting this incident beyond a mere news event. [4][5][6][7]
• Keep per Atama and sources listed directly above. Plus the "try try again" nature of the nom is troubling. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article will never be deleted. It's as integral to the essence of Wikipedia as cheese trees and the list of woodlice of the British Isles. It's as essential to our existance as bears in heraldry and Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers. If we delete this article, we might as well go ahead and delete Everything. Dog poop girl forever! Viva la muchacha de la mierda de perro! --Boston (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the things you have listed are verifiably notable, and in contrast to this shit actually still relevant. Stick with the murderers - at least those examples are so utterly ridiculous as to be entertaining. Oh, and btw, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (pun intended). WikiScrubber (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Shitty Article — Obviously, per nominator and other valid deletion reasons already given. Jack Merridew 07:46, 8 March 2009 (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.