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 no consensus. This discussion attracted a lot of new and less experienced editors so I am going to give some extra explanation. Nearly all decisions on Wikipedia are made through discussion rather than voting which we call consensus decisions making. Because of this some Wikipedians call the bolded comment (e.g. keep or delete) a not vote (sometimes shortened to !vote). Since it is not a vote the closer needs to consider the arguments being made for each side and how that matches up to our policies (which are considered very important and have fewer exceptions) and guidelines (which are still important but may have more exceptions). If someone participates and gives a reason that is not supported by our policies and guidelines, it is the closer's job to weigh comments and give less weight, or even discard, comments that can't be supported. As a closer it is my responsibility to figure out what consensus was reached by participants, or if there was no consensus, not to give my opinion. In fact if I have an opinion about the topic I am not supposed to close it but should instead participate. In this case I have no opinion and am qualified to be a closer.
With that background out of the way, there is consensus in this discussion that reliable sources exist to verify the information in the article. The disagreement, among editors who use a policy/guideline based reason for their participation, is whether this event should be considered news. Those who suggest the article be deleted suggest that this event is unlikely to have enduring significance (what is sometimes called the 10 year test). Those who suggest the article be kept demonstrate that there is worldwide coverage of Josh fight by multiple well known reliable sources and suggest that this kind of coverage is exactly what we would expect from a recent event that will have lasting coverage and not just be a meme or part of a short news cycle.
Because both of these positions can be supported by policies and guidelines and because there is a roughly equal number of editors on each policy/guideline backed side there is no consensus in this discussion. This means that the article will stay for now but can be renominated again in the future to find consensus. However I would strongly suggest a minimum wait of 6-12 months to give enough time for more evidence of lasting notability (the word we use to describe topics that may have articles) to be shown (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh fight[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Josh fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a single incident that fits in the category of transient "odd-but-true" entertainment-style "news" that has no encyclopedic or historical value. Yes, it has sufficient reliable sources and significant (recent) coverage. I can find as many reliable sources and significant coverage for an article on a dog rescued from the ice[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] which illustrates that just having reliable sources isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article fits into what Wikipedia is not. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

collapse ref list for page readability

References

  1. ^ Harrison-Martin, Jackie (February 23, 2021). "International concern for dog rescued on river turns into wave of controversy over ownership". News-Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  2. ^ "Dog Rescued After 4 Days Stranded Along Icy Detroit River". US News & World Report. February 21, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Champion, Brandon (March 29, 2021). "Man adopts dog he rescued from icy Detroit River". mlive. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  4. ^ Press, Associated (February 21, 2021). "Dog rescued after 4 days stranded along icy Detroit River". KUSA.com. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  5. ^ Taylor, Ariana (February 22, 2021). "'Miracle dog' recovering after he was stranded for days on Detroit River". Detroit News. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  6. ^ "Dog Stranded Alone on the Thin Ice of a Michigan River Saved by Animal-Loving Rescuers". PEOPLE.com. January 5, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  7. ^ "Dog rescued after falling through ice in Dearborn County". MSN. April 20, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  8. ^ "Canadian helps rescue stranded dog on Detroit River ice in international effort". CTVNews. February 21, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  9. ^ Thomason, Amanda (March 30, 2021). "'Miracle' Dog That Survived 4 Days Stranged on Ice Finally Finds His Perfect Owner". The Western Journal. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  10. ^ Detroit, FOX 2 (February 21, 2021). "Dog rescued after spending 4 days on ice patch along the Detroit River". FOX 2 Detroit. Retrieved April 25, 2021.((cite web)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • Hi there, the problem is that the article covers a recent topic that had a small amount of media coverage within that time. In regards to the lasting effect argument, one charity donation doesn't make a long-lasting effect. You might be interested in WP:LULZ, which outlines how something being funny isn't an argument to use in a deletion discussion. If we were to not delete articles as it robs 'the people of the future of knowledge about this era.' every article would have to stay, which would be extremely hard to consistently moderate and manage with reliable sources. Moreover, the article can be spoken about in a paragraph or so elsewhere, but is not notable enough for it's own article. Fixing26 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to be appearing in numerous sources that establish notability, at least for now. If the only sources that can be found in a few months or so are the same sources published in the immediate aftermath of the event, then a reevaluation of notability and a renomination, if necessary, is always a possibility. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ("1 Josh", "Hundreds of Joshes" etc) was newly–added vandalism. MainPeanut (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully agreed that the use of that infobox was unconstructive, and I've changed it back. I don't think it should be regarded as relevant to this AfD either way. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
collapse ref list for page readability

References

  1. ^ "Josh fight: Crowds show up for pool noodle battle to win rightful ownership of their name". Sky News.
  2. ^ "See hundreds of people named Josh brawl with pool noodles in Nebraska". CNN.
  3. ^ Trent, Rachel. "See hundreds of people named Josh brawl with pool noodles in Nebraska". CTV News.
  4. ^ "One true Josh! Hundreds of Josh gather to raise money for 4-year-old". WION.
  5. ^ "Serunya 'Josh Fight', Pertemuan Ribuan Orang Bernama 'Josh' di Amerika Serikat". Kumparan.
  6. ^ "Warum sich eine Horde junger Männer mitten in Nebraska mit Pool-Nudeln bekämpft". Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung.
  7. ^ "名前を賭けて決戦、全米から「ジョシュ」が集まり奇妙な戦い". Japanese Yahoo.
  8. ^ Thet, Nyi Nyi. "Josh vs. Josh vs. Josh: 4-year-old emerges as winner of ultimate Josh showdown". Mothership.
  • I'm going to reiterate from my another reply that there are some pictures in circulation on Facebook that indicate that some people are making groupchats to try to imitate the Josh Fight, but with different names this time. But, as I say it again, I can't really tell if it will be seriously executed or not.DJ Baguio (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cheeftun: your argument is based on WP:ITSINTHENEWS. I suggest you take a look at the whole page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) in general, since what you said above ("People will imitate it. Journalists will write about it again and this page will be needed to contextualize copycat events") is WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the "Delete" arguments that say "that event will not be notable" (like TParis wanted to implify: "The reporting is a flash in the pan. It has no long term importance at all.") are also WP:CRYSTAL by then. DJ Baguio (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! That's why I think this AfD is clusterfucked. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "People will imitate it" part of Cheeftun's argument is now less WP:CRYSTAL since some posts in Facebook (in which I'm very active) indicate that some people are apparently planning to imitate the Josh Fight event with different names. I can't tell, however, if these plans will come into fruition in any way.DJ Baguio (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's forgotten in two weeks, we can delete it then. We're not wasting space. ((u|Bowler the Carmine)) (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the facts may be correct (they are), the event may be real (it is), and the article may be real (it is), that doesn't make it automatically notable. I was born (for real) but that doesn't mean that I deserve an article. Please expand upon your reasoning. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again... Borderline WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of that page directly says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid". You are going to have to find another argument, or at least elaborate, because simply linking that page is not an argument. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk)
What you said is to some extent correct, but it is only valid when some stuff exists for a reason, which are mostly more minor things or in cases where there is no specific notability guideline for the topic (for this article the relevant notability guideline is WP:NEVENT). Also the reason this article was put up for deletion is not simply because it's "some silly internet thing" (even though some users have said that) but rather because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't know (yet) if this will have a lasting effect or not. Thank you for caring enough to read and respond (unlike many others). ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having fun with repeatedly linking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prime example of WP:LULZ. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure the incident being either funny or recent is good enough reasoning to keep the article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP editor, see Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the answer of your question. And also your arguments are WP:LOSE and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nostalgia and your feelings toward the event are irrelevant in the decision on whether to keep this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from NPR, Fox News, The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Associated Press, Arizona Central, The Indian Express, Indy100, The Arizona Republic, Metro (newspaper), Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier
and several more reputable news organizations and publishers. The notability of this event is reasonably big as well.
It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation. Also, many of the people against this page's existence claim that it is new and not yet noteworthy. Just because something is new does not at all make it not noteworthy.
Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page: even though this event had exponentially more participants than the scarcely-attended Area 51 gatherings and nearby festivals.--JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
New record: that's WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at once. Keep going. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Styyx, let's not WP:BITE the newbies, they're contributing in good faith, even if they are not as familiar with policy as experienced editors. I know you're also commenting in good faith, but it's not a spectator sport. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note, if they're newbies, please stop using the wiki-ABCs. You're forcing more Wikipedia jargon in their face that will make it harder for them to understand how to make good AfD arguments. Explain with clarity, not with the expectation that they'll read 15 policy pages on the topic. Chlod (say hi!) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JoshFight: responding again per your and others' "request". "The article has already been translated into different languages.": each Wikipedia project has its own way of defining notability, as guidelines differ from language to language. Those interwiki links (as we call it), cannot be used as a reliable source. "It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from NPR, Fox News, The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Associated Press, Arizona Central, The Indian Express, Indy100, The Arizona Republic, Metro (newspaper), Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier and several more reputable news organizations and publishers.": as the nominator said, there can be bursts of reliable sources for each breaking news, and we do not create articles for those, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. "It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation.": because a page is of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is actually notable. "Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page": citing another page is not convincing, as there is almost nothing stopping people from creating other articles. It's only valid when some stuff exists for a reason, which are more minor things. this will undoubtedly happen again, and the event's official subreddit community has even discussed the possibility of another event next year with a different name in use. This will continue on.: what you are saying here is a pure speculation of the future, we cannot know if it is really going to happen or not. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Chlod. And I have to mention that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and there is no obligation for anyone to agree with it. Just because someone use OSE does not mean their comments are invalid. The admins would judge as they close this discussion, and as far as I could see those who respond to other new commenters by using jargons are not admins. (and they probably would never become one if they keep doing that) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Chlod (talk · contribs). Not because of our votes is the same, but I feel that the atmosphere on this particular AfD is pretty bitter. As a newbie myself, I feel there are lots of WP:BITE going on and lots of borderline WP:UNCIVIL actions. I do not want to point to a specific editor, but continuing to post links to Wikipedia guidelines while not explaining anything is pretty much biting the newcomers. Yes, lots of newbies didn't know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but that is exactly why we should explain to them instead of just dismissing them quickly. And from a newbie standpoint, if Area 51 could stand, why couldn't this one, which really happened, and with humanitarian cause, can't be allowed to stand? It's the "duty" of more experienced editor to educate them, instead of just dismissing them with a wave.SunDawn (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I agree. Also, a lot of people are citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think they fail to read the first sentences on WP:SSE (which is in the same essay): "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Wizzito (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I feel that some people here should stop WP:Biting new editors (being unfair towards new editors), and instead lay out the rules and guidelines, instead of linking to a lot of jargon that newbies may not understand. Wizzito (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with this. As pointed out by Jeromi Mikhael and SunDawn, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an official policy, but simply advice. One line of the essay in particular that stands out is "Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate." It has gotten to the point where a lot of the keep votes done by newcomers are being rebutted by simply pointing to the essay with no further explanation, which the essay itself discourages. I also feel like this is overshadowing some of the legitimate arguments made by other users as well. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I am one of the editors who kept slamming OSE essays on newbie editors, and I apologize for that. This AfD is getting unreasonably repetitive with the same reasons all over again, and it's getting annoying.. Well, this is actually my first AfD page that I'm very much worked out, so I scarcely stated my arguments here unless when deemed necessary due to lack of experience, so I just tried to patrol this AfD to keep it in control. But it also seemed like some of my actions actually added more chaos instead of controlling it. Again, I apologize for that. Guess I'll just tag SPAs for now. ^_^ DJ Baguio (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DJ Baguio, understandable, thank you for acting in good faith. Frankly, I wish this AfD could be closed sooner rather than later, no matter what the consensus is, because I agree that it has rapidly grown repetitive. But apparently there's no good precedent for doing that, so we'll just have to wait until the week has run its course. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ImprovedWikiImprovement: The debate over meeting GNG comes from determining the article's lasting significance, as that in itself is a part of the notability guideline for events. While it's certain that the views will go down as the internet moves on with its next viral trends, it is likely that this event won't be forgotten either. There are numerous comparisons between this and Storm Area 51, most of which fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but even though there's hardly any news coverage of Storm Area 51 anymore, the page still receives ~750-800 views per week (excluding the new views sparked by this event) and 34 edits per week (from 21 March to 21 April). I acknowledge that page viewership and editing statistics don't solidify lasting significance, but perhaps they'll provide an insight into the event's questionable significance in the future?
  • @PeterPrettyCool: Hi there, we can't know if people will remember it a year from now. The people saying that it'll be forgotten and you saying it won't are against WP:CRYSTAL which, in summary, means you can't suggest you do know what reliable sources will be saying a year from now or that an event will be still revelant. Fixing26 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lasting effect is needed for events only and not for people (see WP:LASTING). "Article X also exists" is not an argument. The fact that the lasting effect of the Area 51 raid is questionable is a reason to delete that article, not keep this one. Please make a policy-based argument. Thanks. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Layton, Josh (February 27, 2021). "'Little Josh' fans raise money for college fund after he wins battle of Joshes". Metro. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
@MJL: That's why he made the copy. As a draftspace. So we don't have to scrounge up all the sources again if the page is deleted. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:D530:346B:5153:DBE5 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep discussion in English, and please be respectful. LucasA04 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing26, while I agree that the burst of coverage right after the event is, understandably, receding into the past, there is already continuing coverage that goes in-depth and discusses this event in the context of others past and future. For instance, this Op-Ed from today in a local Delaware paper, hundreds of miles from any local connection.[1] No event is covered as frequently as when it actually happens, but I don't think there's any real reason to believe this won't still be mentioned and discussed months in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - further continuing coverage.[2][3]
@Ganesha811: That's true, however the event coverage from major sources seemed to be one or two brief stories, and the rest from minor publications. These were mostly published around the date of the Josh fight, and coverage was nothing more than covering the basics of it being an internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Editor, Darin J. McCann | Executive. "How many Joshes does it take to have a good time?". Coastal Point. Retrieved 2021-04-29. ((cite web)): |last= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ Nasser, Yousef (2021-05-02). "After week of their lives, Josh Swain and Little Josh look to the future". KLKN-TV. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  3. ^ Miller, Dale. "'Battle of the Joshes' more than absurd event". The Grand Island Independent. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
Please also see WP:RAPID which are outlined at WP:EVENT where nomination for deletion should be held for few days, while this AFD is immediately requested few hours after the event. WP:PERSISTENCE arguments also fall into WP:CRYSTAL, as editors are unsure about the notability of the event in the future, that is why I advocate keeping the article for now, and assess its notability in the future. SunDawn (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case with most internet memes is that they stay relevant for a short amount of time, whilst it was wrong for the nominator to immediately open the inquiry into deletion. In regards to WP:PERSISTENCE, the news headlines are already fading, and whilst this can't be used to predict the future, it's shows that the event has already mostly fallen out of relevance other than those who insist to keep believing the meme. Fixing26 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
XaotikHP, we know that it happened, but that's not enough (see WP:EXIST). The worldwide news generated is as a result of what we call recentism. Please expand upon your reasoning and make a policy-based argument. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qwaiiplayer, while I think there are a lot of reasonable points in your comment, I want to take issue with one part of it - that "it does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports)." I don't think that is accurate. The WSJ, NYTimes, Lincoln Star-Journal, and a couple of other sources are long, in-depth, and solely focused on this event - they all show signs of original reporting (interviewing relevant people, for instance), and are not just "churnalism" that lifts from other reporters. While not all of the article's sources are as high quality as those, overall, the coverage is in-depth. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, that essay appears as a red link. Is this a serious comment about deletion? Wizzito (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzito What do you think? ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete for now. NOTNEWS, indeed. But could be notable in few years if there is sustained coverage. We should have a project/system for such hibernated topics, tagged with 'revisit in 5 years' or something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 30 April 2021 (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.
More