Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Kane

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rcingham (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 15 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jamie Kane

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like a pedant here, but MattC did not originally create this article, only the Boy*d Upp one. - Aya 42 T C 01:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The original creator of these pages was Jon Hawk, who still hasn't explained his purpose in adding fake material to Wikipedia. --William Pietri 04:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the first revision of the article (supposedly created by Jon_Hawk) did contain a weak note (bottom of the page) about this being a fictional page. While the original article was bad in most (or all) aspects, I do not believe it was done as part of an advertising campaign - more likely a person who is familiar with the game and conceived the fictional character as notable created the article in much the same spirit as most "StarTrek", "Doom" or "Halo" articles which treat the material as a matter of fact and only weakly note their fictional nature. 62.90.49.87 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign. --Barberio 08:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boy*d Upp - Aya 42 T C 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Commercial Advertising rthorntn
  • Delete Commercial Advertising Qolume 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Baffledexpert 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a marketing ploy. Doesn't belong here. --Peripathetic
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [1] --Barberio 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional character. Kappa 08:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional character, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any fictional character featured prominently in a major campaign by the BBC is notable. The article was created with the intent to promote something, but it has an "edit" button. Kappa 09:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Minus the advertising, the article is meaningless and does not provide any information of note. Since the article does not stand on its own, and is an attempt at advertising, it meets Deletion requirments. --Barberio 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as above. --Stereo 09:01:36, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • DELETE: Speedy deletion. If we let advertising campaigns poison Wikipedia, we might as well shut the place down. Krisjohn 09:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, emphasize it is advertising. Ad campaigns should be documented as such, especially if taking viral form, as an early disclosure to make misleading of the public with fictional "real" stuff a bit more difficult. --Shaddack 09:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. When suitably marked as "fictional : accuracy disputed", and re-written to explain the fictional use, this (a) shows how fast, intelligently and effectively Wikipedia can respond to such silly marketing tricks and remain on higher ground, by simply exposing the truth rather than getting caught up in silly games. Also, (b) it largely destroys (or at least, can be written to counter) the viral marketing goals, if that is indeed why it was created. In this sense, it can be used to explain to the exact demographic who are being taken in by the fictional game, why this conflicts with the goals of Wikipedia. Lastly (c), if other marketers see the above process, and realise playing tricks with wikipedia will run a high risk of damaging their brand, rather than creating a "cool, viral" edge, then they will be less likely to abuse it in the future. mintywalker 10:54, 14 August 2005 (BST)
    • I disagree. Keeping the article purely to point out that its fictional viral marketing and how evil it is would be a POV, and go against the principles of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, not a source of comentary. The best thing is to simply remove viral marketing as it appears. It should be noted that keeping the marketing, but noting it as marketing, does not reduce the marketing impact. Infact, this whole debate simply gains more 'eyes' on the BBC which was the intent. So I feel it should be quickly directed to a deletion. --Barberio 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • a) seems weak to me. We'd have to explain that was the intention. Then it's an article about viral marketing, not this dork.
  • Delete. Keeping it is not a particularly intelligent response to a marketing ploy. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Is faintly notable, apparently, and NPOV-able. Sandstein 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Article has become notable, because its an atempt to use Wikipedia for viral marketing, but the contents are not notable information. The bar should be kept very high on what is notable for a fictional character to be recorded, Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character, Jamie Kane is not --Barberio 10:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the abstract, I concur with Barberio, although the bar need not be very high (Wikipedia is not paper). But maybe this page (or the associated "band" below) could serve as a declared example of viral marketing in Wikipedia itself. Also, if this gets actually popular in the real world, the page would have to be recreated. Sandstein 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Qwghlm 11:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for viral marketing. GraemeL 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GraemeL hits it on the head.k Nandesuka 12:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Viral marketing. --Spliced 13:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Genuine good-faith fancraft has a place in Wikipedia because it does no harm if researched to encyclopedic standards. Tolerating the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even when the article contributor has no direct connection to the promoter, does real harm to Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marketing has no place in wikipedia. Pahalial 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Boy*d Upp, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. -- WormRunner | Talk 15:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete --Ben Houston 15:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a bald faced abuse of WIkipedia for advertising. Nothing about the article is notable except that it exists here, making the "keep" logic circular. Lastly, we invite more and more of this we we do not delete this. I'd hate to see Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia become Wikipedia: The Free Viral Marketing Test Site. Tobycat (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps it can be added back after the game is finished for historical reasons. (see end of page)70.49.185.60 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but the game may warrant a genuine article if it doesn't flop; it's an unusual thing for the BBC to have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mholland (talk • contribs) 2005-08-14 16:18:14 UTC (UTC)
  • Delete - If somebody were to turn this into a page about the game Jamie Kane rather than the fictional person Jamie Kane, I'd probably change my vote. Especially if the article explains that the BBC, as part of a marketing campaign, was involved in putting fradulent material in Wikipedia. --William Pietri 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ugh. fuzzie 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I like Barberio's suggestion. Malcolm Farmer 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up the article to make it more clear that it's fictional for the interim, just to make things nice until it's fully zapped, but I agree that not to come down hard on this invites further abuse. In fact, I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think we need to nominate advertising spam such as this to be a criteria for speedy deletion. — WCityMike (T | C) 17:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be more valuable to make an article about the whole thing and redirect all related entries to this unique article ? The article could present the fake facts and a discussion on the use by the BBC of the Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign. --81.245.143.84 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To do so would be to play into the hands of the vandals. Exactly what they're trying to do is to generate "buzz" -- to make something seem notable which was not notable before, and to abuse Wikipedia to do it. That's basically the definition of Wikispam. This isn't an interesting case of "viral marketing" -- it is simply the abuse of Wikipedia. It needs to be deleted, and the offenders made incapable of doing it again, by blocking and banning. --FOo 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "buzz" has been around for over a year. See the references in the rewritten article. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Uncle G's fine edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely non-notable in and of itself. Ironically, the only arguable reason it may have become notable (in the last TWO DAYS OF ITS EXISTENCE) has been its linking with Wikipedia, riding on Wikipedia's coattails. Avoid self-reference. D. G. 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly redirect to the article on the BBC's game that this character is from, if such an article exists... though my vindictive streak would love to get back at the Beeb by blackballing info on the game. Dayv 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would set a precedent.
  • Delete. If and when this actually becomes more notable than "The Famous Teddy Z", reconsider. Ordinarily I would lean the other way, following the principle that "even a notable hoax is notable," but in this case I think a message needs to be sent that Wikipedia is not to bee abused in this way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Corporations should be prohibitted from taking advtange of a publicly administered infospace. Adam Schwabe 18:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC) ;
  • Delete. Agree with comments just above: even if a hoax, it is surely becoming notable - however, a message does need to be sent, and if this article is resurrected in an honest manner, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. As it stands, we can't allow Wiki to become a marketing tool. --Coolhappysteve
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; already mentioned in viral marketing; perhaps redirect to there. Would never, ever have heard of any of this if it weren't for the fuss over it being on Wikipedia. Agree with Curps and FOo. If BBC wants a Wiki on this figment so badly, they can make their own. Oboreruhito 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Alterego 21:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect the current article to Boy*d Upp. If the character becomes truly famous then he can have his own article, until then I see no need. Thryduulf 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Vote superceded - see new vote below re-write marker[reply]
    • Actually, that's the reverse of the way that I suggest handling this. The primary article shouldn't be the band. The band fails WP:MUSIC utterly. It is, after all, an entirely fictional band. The game is what is the real thing in the real world. And the game is called Jamie Kane. Boy*d Upp should, if anything, redirect here, as per WP:FICT. Uncle G 00:32:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Following the rewrite I agree and have changed my vote on both VfDs accordingly.
  • Keep and expand. Page has been linked to in outside sources; for many people, this page is their first glimpse of Wikipedia. And 'viral marketing'? Frankly, my Wiki, I don't give a damn. Almafeta 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viral marketing is not acceptable use of Wikipedia. Buy your own site, like ILoveBees did.--SarekOfVulcan 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 21:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and advertising. - Motor (talk) 22:15:20, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a bare-faced abuse of Wikipedia which should not be tolerated. -- Arwel 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page probably reflected a clueless member (perhaps of the team that produced Jamie Kane) rather than an orchestrated attempt by the BBC to add false information to Wikipedia. A reason to keep: Potentially mutually beneficial to BBC and Wikipedia due to increased exposure AND having just signed up for an account (it does seem quite well done) - it is potentially a good article to talk about use (and misuse!) of new web technologies. A reason to delete: Not notable (outside of BBC/Wikipedia) yet: If/when 'he' becomes notable, someone (outside the BBC) will add the page back. --Mintchocicecream 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is an attribute created over time. This is clearly an attempt to create that notability by exploiting Wikipedia. Also, abuse of advertising policy. --johnd 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". This isn't even fancruft: there aren't any fans. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with strong prejudice. As per JohnD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--nixie 23:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited without mercy and done a complete rewrite from sources about the actual game, rather than about the eponymous character within the game, providing the "article on the BBC's game that this character is from" that Dayv (and Michael Snow, William Pietri, and Mholland) mentions above. The list of sources given in the references section indicates that this game has received some news media and other coverage over the past year. Whilst the original fake biography of a fictional character may qualify as viral marketing, the current straight summary of primary and secondary sources (some of them critical) dealing with a venture by the BBC into the world of interactive fiction does not. Furthermore, better this than a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game over the next few months repeatedly being deleted (which, based upon past experience, is what would likely happen if the article were deleted). Keep. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. —Ashley Y 00:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-researched, balanced and impressive rewrite. --Mintchocicecream 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly weakly. This is currently nn as it has no fans and is a probably failing venture judging from the article. Although the BBC is a respectable organisation, pretty much any corporation could shuffle out a lowish quality VR game without it being notable. They might want it to "go viral" and might want it to get big, but so far it hasn't. -Splash 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that any company can create a game web site. However, the beauty of basing articles upon reliable third-party sources is that it does tend to filter out those games that don't get press coverage in national newspapers (where that coverage isn't a simple regurgitation of a press release) during their development and launch. Uncle G 03:02:22, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. the best way to deflate this attempt to promote a fictional character is to present the real facts, which Uncle G has done splendidly. i think this will be more effective at deterring similar stunts than deleting the article. Chieftramp 02:15 monday 15 vii (bst)
  • Delete: still not noteworthy, and we're still serving more as a means of advertising than as an encyclopedia. An ad campaign isn't in itself noteworthy. If the fact that the BBC—which ought to be concerned about its reputation for truthfulness, as a news organization—advertises by appearing to perpetrate a hoax might eventually become noteworthy, but not until and unless it bites them in the ass. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jamie Kane is not an advertising campaign. It's an alternate reality game. And this article discusses the game's commissioning, creators, history of development, cost, writers, plot, and so forth. Please don't confuse other editors' comments in the preceding discussion with what is actually in the article and in the sources. Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Of course it's advertising. It's a way of getting people—primarily teenaged girls with disposable income, who are desirable to website and broadcast advertisers—to sign on to BBC-run bulletin boards (bbc.co.uk) etc. Your article even links to the page for people to sign up for the game and website! - Nunh-huh 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, under this kind of definition, many things could be considered advertising. I mean, one could potentially argue that the iPod page is as much of a promotion of the iPod. As Uncle G mentions, if the page is deleted, "a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game" would occur. Surely, this article deserved to be kept. --Mintchocicecream 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our iPod article was not created from within Apple headquarters. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since the iPod article was created by a registered user, you have no way to make that determination, and if you care to check the page history for the article we're actually voting on, there is no way to know this one was created in BBC headquarters either. - Aya 42 T C 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The same can't be said of the "Boy*d Upp" article, where this material originated, can it. Who knew the BBC had such rabid running dog defenders? This is a web-based game that is less than two weeks old, created to funnel web-traffic to the BBC web-site. It has no other significance. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, there may be advertising effects by having this article, but so do many of the articles here. AFAIK Uncle G isn't from the BBC and even if so, the significant edits contributed by him and other users are balanced and suitable for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, apart from actually being in the UK, I have no affiliation with the BBC nor do many of the supporters on this page. Assuming you have read the discussion, it is clear this is a complete re-write and I can't see how this article originated from the Boy*d Upp article. Generally, the BBC has a massive amount of resources to wield at its disposal and would neither need to nor resort to relying on an open-content encyclopedia to funnel traffic to their website! In any case, Wikipedia is not a website frequented primarily by 14-18 year old girls and thus any advertising effects is minimal. --Mintchocicecream 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It's a game, as I said. By your excessively broad definition of advertising, Wheel of Fortune is not a game but is instead a way of advertising and getting people to watch television channels. Uncle G 03:21:28, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • You thought maybe it was art? The BBC clearly felt that a game to entice young teenage girls to acquire a log-in to the BBC website was worth a good deal of money, as they paid for its development for exactly that purpose. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This kind of Wikipedia abuse should not be tolerated by any means. --Andre (talk) 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • An article that straightforwardly summarizes 9 cited sources is "abuse"? Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep - The original article was possibly bogus, but the new one helpfully written by Uncle G is well-sourced, and deserves to remain. - Aya 42 T C 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Keep- I've gotta say, the new edits have changed my votes. I am now under the impression that the original article was, at worst, a bad choice or presentation, rather than deliberate free advertising. I feel the article as it is now is both well written and possibly notable enough to keep. And I agree that not having the article may cause people to recreate it in the future. My only current concern is how new the game is. It may well be a big flop and gone in a few weeks. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:53
  • Delete. Advertising nonsense. Andrew pmk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original was indeed advertising, but the rewritten article is a good one. I invite everyone who voted prior to seeing the new article to have a look at it now and consider if they want to change or keep their vote the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote. The article is now about the game, and the game was notable enough to have been covered in the referenced Guardian article. Kudos to User:Uncle G for the rewrite. --William Pietri 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new article is notable, factual, and of encyclopedic note as to both the game and the issue of viral marketing. MCB 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although if having information on unreleased games is undesirable, perhaps rename it (Perhaps Prerelease:Jamie_Kane ?). I'm eagerly awaiting the game Oblivion, which isn't released yet, and was glad to find significant information about it here. Ron Johnson Ron Johnson
  • Keep, this shows the Wikipedia process at its finest. All hail UncleG!-- Visviva 06:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important event in the development online interactive marketing. Several editors need to move beyond their petulant school yard hurt, and think in a more mature way. --ben dummett 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the harm? --Rebroad 08:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. If it becomes significant at some point in the future WITHOUT basing that significance on exploitation of Wikipedia, then some article might be appropriate at THAT time. Shanen 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Things should get here after they are already known to people. this game thing is not even a trend at the moment, so this is pure advertisement (and even now that it gets deleted, the advertisement went thru, despite the fact the target are presumably teenager girls... how many among slashdot readers?) Jaromil
  • keep Rewrite, but keep. The person who created this maybe a marketing scum, but its fairly well written. It should be subjected to intense fack checking & rewrite, though. pamri 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. Good information for people who want to know who that Jamie Kane everybody talks about is.
  • Keep. It's all good now. Meneth 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. James F. (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the page has been edited to refer to the game rather than the characters therein, and since the issue has gained at least a moderate level of interest on the internet, I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping it. However, pages like the one for Boy*d Upp are still viral advertising completely without merit. Even with rewrites I don't see how that page could be made relevant, so I will be voting to delete it. --Parallel or Together? 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Because of the sensationalist and unnecesary coverage on BoingBoing and SlashDupe, what could have been simply removed as vandalism has mutated into a story which is more about Wikipedia and the way it is used than anything else. I think it has to stay now. Reluctantly, keep. --Jolyonralph 10:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamie_Kane&oldid=21057353"