Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh fight

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PythosIsAwesome (talk | contribs) at 13:12, 27 April 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Josh fight

[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)
  • Keep as article creator. I agree that the article has grown too long, and it should definitely be trimmed back to a more reasonable length. But WP:EVENT states that an event shouldn't be considered less notable just because it is recent. I think the widespread (including national) coverage of this event in reliable sources shows that it clearly passes the WP:GNG, as mentioned above. Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture has remained sparse even as it has grown in importance in mainstream society. I think a short, well-sourced article is appropriate. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also note that the higher-than-average potential for this article to be the subject of unconstructive editing and vandalism, while annoying, should not be held against its notability. I created it in good faith and other Wikipedians have contributed in that spirit as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ganesha811: WP:EVENT also says, "However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)."--v/r - TP 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another sporadic internet meme event with no lasting significance. Some expected "human interest" or "good news that a four-year-old had fun 'winning'" sort of coverage (mostly local) but no enduring encyclopedic notability or reason to provide details for a brief WP:NEWS event. Sources are largely churnalism with negligible original reporting in most, reusing the same images and quotes. Reywas92Talk 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) Perfectly fine to keep it as per WP:EVENT and falls within the other guidelines as other editors have pointed out. This holds greater signification and wider interest+foreknowledge for a larger amount of the global population than many of the other articles on this site whether it's an indictment on humanity or not. Would not be totally opposed to deletion after a period of time if it does not remain a sustained news story.—Plifal (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with those who argue that if Storm Area 51 gets an article, so should this one. While the bar for Internet meme coverage is very high on Wikipedia, this one has strong significance for Internet culture; Internet culture has become increasingly impactful. Andymii (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard Josh fight referenced and didn’t know what it was. I searched Google and came to this article which explained the reference, which was useful. I’d like the article to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.153.83 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC) — 73.190.153.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep per WP:NEVENT. I'd like to note that neither NOTNEWS nor OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply here. NOTNEWS covers news-style reporting, not "don't write articles about recent events"; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is...probably the single most subjectively interpretable essay, but quite decisively does not say "when people compare similar articles they're doing something wrong". Vaticidalprophet 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Keep. Such events are significant historical events, not in isolation but in combination. Keep it in combination with other such gatherings like the Area 51 gathering, as a single combined article. (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep only. Although there are comparisons made between the "Area 51 Raid" and the "Josh Fight" in terms of actual event participation, The "Josh Fight" has no real direct involvement to be included into the "Area 51 Raid" article.DJ Baguio (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing the general notability guideline is not enough when the subject is not encyclopedic. Lots of news events are covered by large news outlets, like the dog example cited by the nominator. Such short bursts of coverage do not establish notability, unlike sustained coverage, which would (WP:SUSTAINED). WP:EVENTCRIT specifically addresses this: "Routine kinds of news events (including [...] viral phenomena) – whether or not [...] widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been covered by multiple international sources, and is very much able to be used as an article. If Area 51's events were worthy of being kept as an article, I see no reason why WP:EVENT doesn't cover the Josh fight. Just because it's recent doesn't make it any less unencyclopedic. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Same reasons given by others. Events that come from viral memes can gain significant coverage (Area 51 storming), and shouldn't be discounted just because they're not groundbreaking or "historically valuable". Alimorel (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshFight: this is the 4th argument you've made that is listed as arguments to avoid, this one is WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:58, 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]
  • Keep. Not much to say that hasn't already been said. Sure, it's an internet meme, but this article has facts and it is notable. Sure, it's fair to assume that in a few months not many people will be talking about the cultural significance of the Josh fight, because it's a fairly fleeting moment, but it had fairly wide impact and wide coverage by diverse sources as per WP:EVENT. --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I considered nominating this for deletion, but was torn because of wide ranging sources that pass GNG. Per WP:EVENT, it does seem to meet the criteria of depth of coverage and diversity of sources, however, it fails to meet geographic scope and lasting effects. Duration of coverage is still TBD. Natg 19 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC) (an editor named Josh)[reply]
  • Delete The subject does not hold lasting significance, and it is premature to assume otherwise. Citations offered to defend the significance of the event are largely fluff pieces by North American publishers. Claims that this event has international significance are overblown, with few examples offered. At least one of the supposed examples of international commentary was an article sourced back to CNN, who were already cited. It should also be noted that some communities, such as Imgur, are actively interested in this story. Users from those communities may be under the false impression that the event generally matters outside of those pockets, and may be inclined to interfere with the deletion process for reasons not in the interest of Wikipedia or its policy and quality standards. Melonbob (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it passes the bar previously established. I personally compare this with Storm Area 51, and while later coverage may dispute these numbers, both events seemed to have had a similar attendance (~1500 vs several hundred to few thousand people). Plus the fight was a charity event, which means it has a lasting effect.
    The Josh fight could very well disappear from memory in the not-too-distant future, but it's without a doubt too early to tell. In a few weeks/months time we can discuss this again, after the dust had settled down. YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that after rereading WP:EVENT the fact that this was a charity event, unlike Storm Area 51, is even more fitting to the guidelines. YuvalNehemia (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's sad to think how many events are not known because someone decided not to bother recording them: consider how many things were dismissed as unimportant at the time, but have only now been recognised as significant, and we're mourning the lack of relevant information. All those people saying "delete for now and we'll think about it later", how many of them would even bother to remember? Phil | Talk 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh if only those 31st century humans knew about the meeting of the Joshes. How ever will they survived. If only Wikipedia had a policy to protect such important anthropological information. Buuuuut...it doesn't.--v/r - TP 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS but that discourages routine news about sports and celebrities and we are covering the Oscars regardless. The event in question is more unusual and seems to be reasonably notable and so it passes WP:GNG. It maybe that there's some scope to consolidate this with others meetings of people with the same name but I'm not sure what more we have. Anyway, the applicable policies are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE and these clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs polish, but it is an example of a WP:EVENT, and many other memes and joke events (such as the Storm Area 51 meme) have their own pages.
  • Keep per the points raised by Vaticidalprophet, MainPeanut, Cheeftun, and Phil Boswell. The original argument wherein a dog gets rescued from ice is just WP:DOGBITESMAN. So the dog got rescued. Are we supposed to make articles for every single rescue that have equally "miraculous" circumstances? Unlike an uncommon yet still frequent event like "dog rescued after four days", there's not a lot of (and possibly even near zero) instances where multiple people gathered from the continental United States—most of which bearing the name "Josh"—in order to participate in an event sparked from a "meme" as part of internet culture. The circumstances behind the event - mainly the method of how it was initially planned and its (surprisingly positive) outcomes - also warrant its uniqueness, and will likely serve as a basis for future events of similar nature. Chlod (say hi!) 10:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the future events happen, and secondary sources link them to this event, then we'll cover it then.--v/r - TP 12:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" per WP:LASTING. Rather than delete at this stage, it's rather worth keeping at this stage to identify the lasting effect. Even if there were no lasting effect, this is not your run-of-the-mill event - much like I said in most of my point above. This just feels like a knee-jerk AfD to another viral internet meme that sparked an event: something that definitely has happened before (with nearly the exact same NOTNEWS, RECENTISM excuse). I guess modern internet culture is just this repulsive to some Wikipedians. Chlod (say hi!) 13:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All stated facts are correct, the event did take place, not a fake article, do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:2649:3b00:b541:388d:aeaf:fa47 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC) — 2001:16b8:2649:3b00:b541:388d:aeaf:fa47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • Delete: per nom, per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per the aforementioned arguments highlighting its notability and merits of being maintained as a page (very succinctly summarised by people here such as Andrew, SunDawn, and many others), I see no reason to delete what is a perfectly valid wikipedia article and passes the threshold for being preserved. Greenleader(2) (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure it's a odd but true story but it was something weird that happened. As for "flash in the pan" there are plenty of articles on here that not only are of long forgotten things that basically no one remembers except for the nerdiest of historians. In addition I've noticed it DOES follow rules set forth by the admins. Sure we can trim it but to delete it is a travesty and would have to bring up the question of THOUSANDS of other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All the usernames have been taken by now (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most keep arguments border WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that we have an article on the Storming of Area 51 is simply not an argument. From what I can see it meets WP:GEOLAND as there are sources from the UK, Canada and India pointed out by MainPeanut. There is one problem: we don’t know if this has lasting effects since the event happened recently, just 2 days ago. Any speculation of it having or not having lasting effects (such as what Cheeftun and Jmchugh131 did) is pure WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NEVENT says ”It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect”. I’d recommend closing as no consensus and re-nominating a few months later to see if it indeed has lasting effects to be considered a notable event. --~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 12:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per MainPeanut, among others. Why has this been nominated so soon after creation? Where's the good faith? We should revisit this discussion in several months time, when its' lasting notability can be more easily ascertained. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This wasn't just "some silly internet thing", it was an event that raised considerable amounts of money and food for charity. And even if it was just "some silly internet thing", why is that a reason for deletion? Does Wikipedia pride itself on being Olympic-level killjoys? If the Area 51 raid can have an article for recklessly destroying a portion of the desert, then this article and its subject's charitable contributions certainly deserve an article. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 14:02, 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]
  • Keep: Many others have stated events like Area 51 have been documented on Wikipedia, and I personally think this article is being nominated for deletion due to its very recent nature. Look at the Area 51 event, little people talk about it now, but it was still significant. The same could be said for the Josh fight if given enough time to expand and be properly documented. DavidCostell44 (talk) 14:17, 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]
  • Keep: Isn't wikepedia about documenting history? If so why is there a bias towards events that have happened, stopping them from being retold in the future? There is countless stupid things like this that have been recorded in history, yet we're ignoring today's history, and by deleting today's records, those in the future will have forgotten about this era. — 99.234.172.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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]
  • Comment Both keep and delete have used arguments that are discouraged by WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. We do not know if this event will be forgotten in two weeks, we do not know if it will be remembered in a decade. As several other Wikipedians have suggested here before me, the best course of action would probably be leaving this discussion for now as per no consensus, and have it resurface in a few months time. YuvalNehemia (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.34.234 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC (UTC) — 201.163.34.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I disagree that the article is an example of what Wikipedia is not, but even according to Wikipedia's own 5th pillar, "Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
  • And just because you don't believe that an article is newsworthy, doesn't mean that it's actually "not news." It was notable enough to trend worldwide on Twitter, which is where I discovered this wholesome story about a man named Josh who held a pool noodle battle in a small town in Nebraska to crown the owner of the name Josh and raise money for a children's hospital. USA Today thought it was news. 2600:1700:5258:1050:3513:5921:CE01:8267 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— 2600:1700:5258:1050:3513:5921:CE01:8267 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Like what many others have said, the Josh fight has received widespread attention from Internet users, and from sources that can be deemed as verifiable. Its not much different from the Area 51 raid I'd say. Internet-organized events of these magnitudes are rare, and they're notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. I understand that older Wikipedians may find them irrelevant, but I do seriously consider them to have a place on Wikipedia because they aren't just memes (which nowadays they hardly last a day in terms of relevancy), the event actually occurred in real life. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with deleting this article for the reasons listed above. The Josh fight had global news coverage and will be remembered for years to come as another internet meme, especially in comparison to other actions such as the Area 51 Raid. Arkadelaide (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't delete this article , i know that it all started as a meme but it turned into motivational movement that raised money and food for children those in need 102.128.12.2 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— 102.128.12.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Readership This is currently one of the top read articles on Wikipedia with over 300,000 readers in just two days. It is therefore not surprising that such a high-traffic article should have lots of !votes. And consider the alternative. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Philadelphia has just been relisted because in a week of listing, nobody at all could be bothered to register their opinion. Our consensus process requires participation and the more we get, the better. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, given the number of views on the page, I think this discussion has been about as productive as we could have hoped for. A lot of readers will have learned something about AfD and a lot of good faith contributions have been made, even if they haven't all been fluent in policy. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with deleting this article for the reasons listed above. It's keep spreading as a cultural phenomenon already. From what I've seen it was translated at least to 4 different languages far away from US. 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— Evitaperron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Hi there, can you provide a source for your claim of this article having in excess of 300k views? JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoshFight: There is a tool called "pageviews" which allows access to the pageview statistics for any given Wikipedia page. A link to the statistics specifically for "Josh fight" can be found at here, which shows 318,780 views in the past two days. Chlod (say hi!) 12:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has already been translated into different languages.
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]
  • Comment I'd like to request the other editors to please stop hounding the newcomers. If they make flimsy arguments featured in an essay, it's not your job to point it out. If you do want to at least give them some insight on their arugments, use the talk page instead of this AfD. If you see an SPA, just tag them as SPA and move on. This behavior of repeatedly calling out faulty arguments by newcomer editors (even if they came from another website) based on an essay is borderlining on incivility, and does not reflect how we're supposed to be treating new editors, SPA or not. Chlod (say hi!) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I kept hearing references to this and couldn't find out about it. This definetly should be hear to help people know what it is because people will still be talking about this for a long time and the information should be recorded.PythosIsAwesome (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_fight&oldid=1020148485"