Talk:Where's Willy?

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

Other then nationalistic feelings, what makes Where's George? notable and this one not? And before you ask, no I'm not Canadian, I don't ask this because of bias. JackSparrow Ninja 07:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Possibly nothing. I haven't been to the article to check it out yet. There are probably approaching 2 million articles here. It wouldn't be hard for someone to find another article out there that is in worse shape/less notable/more of an advert, etc than this article, which is why wikipedia requires articles to stand on their own.--Crossmr 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put this tag on should explain why here. I think this article is just fine being here. If no one is against it, we should remove the tag. Brandonrush 22:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and removed the tag. There seems little meat to the tag. JackSparrow Ninja 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To which I've re-added it. Please see WP:WEB there is no evidence provided in the article that indicates this website meets it.--Crossmr 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining here then? (usually you comment when you add such a tag...)

What makes the us-version more notable then the Canadian version? JackSparrow Ninja 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how notable the US version is. We're discussing this article. There are approaching 2 million articles here and every article has to stand on its own. So comparing it to article x, isn't an explanation of notability. This article requires links to more than one piece of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source, or evidence provided of a notable award its won, or evidence that its content is being distributed via a well known medium. If that cannot be provided then it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. How notable article X is, is immaterial.--Crossmr 16:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Numismatics folks seem to think this is of "Mid" importance. I'm not familiar enough with their system to find out who gave that judgment; but I suggest asking them (whoever it was) what their reasons are. Syndaryl 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Where's George? page is notable, one presumes, because it's being used as a source of research data about human migration patterns in America, and for modeling data about disease transmission. Where's Willy? certainly is tracking the same data. Frankly, while it's hosted at a separate URL, I think if anything it should be treated as a subsection of Where's George? rather than as a completely independent website. I think deleting this article would be very much excessive, but perhaps merging it with Where's George? as related would be acceptable? Syndaryl 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the website's claims are accurate (an open question) and it was tracking 32 170 130 CA$ as of 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC), then I would say that that is definitely notable, both for the quantity of currency and the novelty value. I do have other skepticism about the site - I can't believe anyone in Canada would ever refer to the Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier as "Willy". Peter Grey 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the notability guidelines to support that as a measure of notability. However to date, there still haven't been any sources provided to support any kind of notability.--Crossmr 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian, I don't think I've ever heard anyone, including my history teachers back in grade school, refer to him as "Right Honourable" anything; even our current prime ministers don't get the Right Honourable treatment outside of formal occasions. Syndaryl 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is he's not called "Willy" by anyone except the seemingly uninformed American who set up the site. I don't think it's even a real French diminutive for Wilfred. Peter Grey 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what French diminutives have to do with the name of a prime minister of a bilingual country... Moreover, the name of the website is "Where's Willy" and it is written in English by an English speaker. The administrators idiosyncrasies don't have much to do with notability. Syndaryl 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Willy is notable as a social phenomenon based on the number of hits and participants. It is also a significant source of data for numismatics. I wouldn't feel to badly about a merge with Where's George, but I would prefer this article to be left alone, and I think to delete it would be folly. --Cjs56 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is definitely notable, firstly, as it tracks a large chunk of currently circulating CAD, and secondly, we never refer to our PMs as "the Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper" or some such. Just like I'm sure Americans don't say "George Walker Bush" every time they refer to the President. Half the time I just hear "Bush" on CNN. --Dante 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]