372:
373:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=970&ei=kLg5WpTjPM30jwPH-qmQDA&q=what+were+they+thinking%3F%3A+the+100+dumbest+events+in+television+history+David+Hofstede&oq=what+were+they+thinking%3F%3A+the+100+dumbest+events+in+television+history+David+Hofstede&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5938.6413.0.7502.2.2.0.0.0.0.66.132.2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.66...0j35i39k1j0i30k1.0.eLHh9tiRoCc
221:
797:
points out that it only focuses on
American television and links to the jumping the shark article in the opening paragraph. And then, there are at least 25 references of this book (and 18 external links mentioning it) that have been culled from Knowledge (XXG) in connection to the entries on the list.
764:
You only bothered to consider only five websites noteworthy to justify your argument (as oppose to trying to further build a case)! And how exactly are the other articles that I brought up possibly "non-worthy" (are they entirely or ultimately non-noteworthy because you personally never heard of them
828:
Only time will tell (two people don't make a consensus, so I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions just yet)! And at least I don't have to resort to using profanity out of frustration (or bluntly shoving my "superiority" about the inner workings of
Knowledge (XXG)) and insulting people whom I disagree
796:
Why don't you proof-read your remarks before you're going to respond to me profanely (and you're calling me a child). And what else does there need to be said! I said that the book was published in the year 2004 and was written by David
Hofstede with the foreword by Tom Bergeron. The article also
696:
Only you personally think the sources that you found are "better" (of course the supposed "better" or more viewed ones are going to come first) or the only ones that are acceptable. And I find it odd that you're saying that it's solely my job to prove that the subject is notable, yet you still have
637:
I don't get what your exact criteria is for what is or isn't "trivial" or "notable"? The book is almost 14 years old now and has often been referenced upfront when it comes to historically covering the very worst of
American television up until that point. Just because you personally don't think
362:
You can't have it "either/or"! How can you say that it's a pretty known book that you've heard a lot about yet on the same token, say that you personally found nothing of real value (there's a reason that things like Google exist)? Frankly, what to you constitutes "true value" in this particular
779:
Oh. My. Fucking God. Just read the guideline page and learn something. It's like talking ot a stubborn child. Anyone with any knowlege of wikipeida standards would understand simply mentioning a book without giving any analasys is not "in depth" coverage. If you want to build a case for why this
434:
This becomes most visible in the field of biography - where everyone would love to have his or her personal moment of fame: “I am so important that the most important encyclopaedia of the age has an article on me!” - and here we get the notability criteria. They define what the global community
681:
I found way better sources than you in a much shorter span, this article does not have a single good source in it right now. In the end your the one who has to prove that the subjetc is notbale, not me that it isn't. I have no job here beyond the fact that I want you to learn something, mainly
430:
All this sounds extremely egalitarian - “this is the encyclopaedia made by its users…” The hidden downside is the pages authoritarian self-definition: If you want to take part you have to leave aside all your personal vanities. This project is about creating an encyclopaedia and it only allows
652:
Please by god just look up the wikipedia page for notability, it's not hard to come by. No one has time or interest to go into detail for something which you could easily find out by yourself. This has nothing to do with personal opinon, wikipeida has rules that has to be
426:
Knowledge (XXG) is free to edit. Anyone can press the button on top of a specific page or next to a subsection. You do not even need a registered account (as on
Facebook or here on Quora). Edit and you will leave you IP address and date as the only traceable credential.
169:
95:
90:
99:
82:
749:
You should really get to know wikipedia guidelines more. Being mentioned on four websites is not notability, at all. And bringing up that other articles exist for other possibly non-notable books doesn't help this article or your case at
435:
defines to be worthy to be noted. You are important if others have decided that one must know more about you - you cannot enter the enter of this hall of fame by simply writing the article on you that will turn you into a celebrity.
341:, this is a pretty well known book that I've heard a lot about, I was sure if I went looking that I would find a bunch of sources, but I honestly found nothign of value. Very suprising to me but it seems this book is not notable.
163:
438:
The entire set of rules in extended. When is a book you wrote so important that it deserves an article? When is an article about your book so important that it can turn your book into an object mankind must know more about.
813:
This article will be deleted, and you refuse to even try to understand wikipedia's standards. How about you read at all, like wikipedia guidelines for example? That would save everyone else a lot of trouble. I'm done
954:
697:
some invested interest in it (considering that virtually anybody on
Knowledge (XXG) can add and contributed information to any particular article regardless of whom exactly started it in the first place).
129:
402:
280:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=What+Were+They+Thinking%3F++David+Hofstede&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=d1mqd7jc16q8l8c3l9ce4v4s5
1134:
1116:
1069:
1048:
1012:
989:
966:
946:
925:
838:
823:
806:
789:
774:
759:
744:
706:
691:
676:
662:
647:
632:
613:
492:
456:
397:
383:
350:
330:
316:
297:
274:
260:
213:
64:
184:
122:
431:
information that has some authority behind - not your personal authority but the authority of sources that can substantiate the collective knowledge an encyclopaedia would gather.
151:
934:
310:
145:
735:
book must be remotely notable if it's going to be acknowledged in at least five different websites. Again, you don't seem to want to bother looking further than that.
324:
523:
141:
1090:
233:
403:
https://www.quora.com/Is-notability-and-its-guidelines-on-Knowledge (XXG)-the-same-as-fame/answer/Olaf-Simons?__filter__&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=1814567313
86:
191:
78:
70:
893:
1060:
passing mentions in sources that I am not sure meet reliable anyway, or slightly less passing mentions in the authors own blog, do not notability make.
513:
464:
237:
157:
896:
908:
ranking of the worst shows is deemed to be an expert opinion. However, this does not advance notability of the book itself per the 5 criteria in
1097:
249:
593:
17:
1023:
999:-- This is about a NN book, consisting of a list article of its contents. Non-encyclopedic. If it were not a book, it would fail
721:
667:
I think that you just proved my point about not having the time or interest to look further into things (guidelines or elsewhere)!
508:
1091:
http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv/2004/11/25/Tuned-In-From-home-grown-to-world-famous-feast-on-TV-turkeys/stories/200411250164
1102:
548:
442:
1086:
976:
420:
884:
558:
533:
245:
1157:
40:
1094:
1029:
727:
241:
875:
583:
1065:
568:
553:
476:
480:
1035:
899:
638:
that it's notable enough doesn't mean that there isn't more to find or look for online beyond just four cases.
902:
1098:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-12-26/entertainment/0412221020_1_geraldo-rivera-nielsens-magic-johnson
1008:
890:
543:
528:
472:
878:
563:
229:
225:
1153:
1112:
1044:
834:
802:
770:
740:
702:
672:
643:
623:
Yeah it's trivial coverage - mentions. Similar to the mentions that Bornon found on wikipedia articles.
609:
452:
379:
368:
270:
256:
36:
1108:
1040:
881:
830:
798:
766:
736:
698:
668:
639:
605:
468:
448:
375:
364:
266:
252:
1061:
913:
905:
1130:
628:
293:
209:
177:
573:
285:
201:
1004:
518:
424:
Actually - in a way - yes, that’s what it is. Knowledge (XXG) notability is something like fame.
909:
962:
942:
921:
819:
785:
755:
687:
658:
488:
393:
346:
200:
Unable to find any sources, reviews, appearance on bestseller lists etc that shows it to pass
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1152:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
578:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
780:
article should be kept you could start of by finding a review of it from a reputable source.
916:, and that this would advance Hofstede's claim to notability. A rename is perhaps possible.
388:
Notability is not fame, please read wikipedia guidelines on notability and learn something.
1000:
1126:
624:
289:
205:
55:
1078:
Is this clearer enough for you (from around the time of the book's initial release)...
887:
265:
There are at least 25 separate references on
Knowledge (XXG) relating to that book.
1095:
http://www.vindy.com/news/2004/oct/23/on-this-tv-events-list-dumb-and-dumber/?print
986:
958:
938:
917:
912:. I do however think that some of the content here could be used in an article for
815:
781:
751:
683:
654:
484:
389:
342:
116:
524:
Happy
Wookiee Life Day from Luke, Leia, Han, and... uh... Bea Arthur, I Guess.
588:
538:
719:
And how is that any different than an article for instance on the books
589:
The Star Wars
Holiday Special: Welcome to the Dark Side - WrestleCrap
359:
That may be because you didn't try or bother to look further enough!
79:
What Were They
Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History
71:
What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History
539:
Star Wars Holiday Special / Star Wars on TV - Classic TV / TVparty!
594:
What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In ... - TV Tropes
514:
10 of the worst TV shows of all time - a scientific* meta-analysis
1125:
That coverage looks ok - however can't copy in entire articles..
731:!? This is basically the same thing except for television. The
1146:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
584:
SleuthSayers: Christmas Stories: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
1083:
417:
979:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
955:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
549:
Yes Virginia, There is a Star Wars Holiday Special | HuffPost
1039:
are purely based on the author's personal selection also.
554:
TV Land “Rebrands” to Raunchy | Parents Television Council
569:
Existence is Horror: “The Neon Demon” & “Bad Ronald”
529:
The Man You Can Blame for the Star Wars Holiday Special
279:
112:
108:
104:
176:
564:
Do you remember the Star Wars Holiday Special? - MeTV
1003:. As it is it is an authjor's personal selection.
985:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
190:
559:10 things you might not know about TV commercials
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1160:). No further edits should be made to this page.
579:Rifftrax: Star Wars Holiday Special – VOD Review
544:The 10 Dumbest TV Shows of All Time – Flavorwire
935:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
311:list of Television-related deletion discussions
509:Looking Back at the Star Wars Holiday Special
8:
953:Note: This debate has been included in the
933:Note: This debate has been included in the
325:list of History-related deletion discussions
323:Note: This debate has been included in the
309:Note: This debate has been included in the
952:
932:
322:
308:
829:with by calling them a "stubborn child".
534:Christmas TV Party 2015: David Hofstede
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
284:...That's not how this works. See
24:
1024:The Fifty Worst Films of All Time
722:The Fifty Worst Films of All Time
371:) 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
1021:Well by that logic, books like
574:By Ken Levine: Friday Questions
1:
1135:09:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1117:09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1070:06:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
1049:09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1013:14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
990:08:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
967:02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
947:02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
926:07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
870:. It seems this is used as a
839:01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
824:01:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
807:01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
790:01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
775:01:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
760:01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
745:01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
707:01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
692:01:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
677:01:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
663:01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
648:01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
633:11:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
614:01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
493:10:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
457:08:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
398:01:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
384:12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
351:10:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
331:15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
317:15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
298:04:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
275:04:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
261:07:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
214:14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
1030:The Hollywood Hall of Shame
728:The Hollywood Hall of Shame
65:10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
1177:
733:What Were They Thinking...
242:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
1149:Please do not modify it.
1036:The Golden Turkey Awards
32:Please do not modify it.
234:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
463:I did find some stuff
874:quite a bit, e.g. -
483:, but is't not much.
327:. Merry Christmas!
313:. Merry Christmas!
872:reference/citation
519:Happy Fake Jan Day
1107:
1106:
1062:John Pack Lambert
992:
969:
949:
447:
446:
333:
319:
63:
1168:
1151:
1084:
984:
982:
980:
765:or read them)!?
418:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1158:deletion review
1147:
993:
975:
973:
246:Chicago Tribune
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1174:
1172:
1163:
1162:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1088:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1016:
1015:
983:
972:
971:
970:
950:
929:
928:
914:David Hofstede
906:David Hofstede
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
561:
556:
551:
546:
541:
536:
531:
526:
521:
516:
511:
498:
497:
496:
495:
445:
444:
441:
422:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
405:
354:
353:
335:
334:
320:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
263:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1173:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1150:
1144:
1143:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:Peterkingiron
1002:
998:
995:
994:
991:
988:
981:
978:
968:
964:
960:
956:
951:
948:
944:
940:
936:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
897:
894:
891:
888:
885:
882:
879:
876:
873:
869:
866:
865:
840:
836:
832:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
748:
747:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:
724:
723:
718:
708:
704:
700:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
552:
550:
547:
545:
542:
540:
537:
535:
532:
530:
527:
525:
522:
520:
517:
515:
512:
510:
507:
506:
505:I found more
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
406:
404:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
332:
329:
326:
321:
318:
315:
312:
307:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
262:
258:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1148:
1145:
1093:
1057:
1034:
1028:
1022:
996:
974:
871:
867:
732:
726:
720:
604:
437:
433:
429:
425:
338:
328:
314:
250:Sun Sentinel
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1109:BornonJune8
1041:BornonJune8
868:Weak Delete
831:BornonJune8
799:BornonJune8
767:BornonJune8
737:BornonJune8
699:BornonJune8
682:guidelines.
669:BornonJune8
640:BornonJune8
606:BornonJune8
449:BornonJune8
376:BornonJune8
365:BornonJune8
267:BornonJune8
253:BornonJune8
164:free images
58:Sandstein
1154:talk page
1131:pingó mió
1127:Galobtter
959:• Gene93k
939:• Gene93k
653:followed.
629:pingó mió
625:Galobtter
294:pingó mió
290:Galobtter
286:WP:NBOOKS
238:BookLikes
230:Goodreads
210:pingó mió
206:Galobtter
202:WP:NBOOKS
37:talk page
1156:or in a
977:Relisted
910:WP:NBOOK
904:- where
816:★Trekker
782:★Trekker
752:★Trekker
684:★Trekker
655:★Trekker
485:★Trekker
390:★Trekker
363:case!?
343:★Trekker
123:View log
39:or in a
987:Spartaz
918:Icewhiz
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1058:Delete
1033:, and
997:Delete
339:Delete
226:Amazon
142:Google
100:delete
50:delete
1001:WP:OR
814:here.
222:Books
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1113:talk
1066:talk
1045:talk
1009:talk
963:talk
943:talk
922:talk
835:talk
820:talk
803:talk
786:talk
771:talk
756:talk
750:all.
741:talk
725:and
703:talk
688:talk
673:talk
659:talk
644:talk
610:talk
489:talk
481:here
479:and
477:here
473:here
469:here
465:here
453:talk
394:talk
380:talk
369:talk
347:talk
271:talk
257:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
192:TWL
121:– (
1133:)
1115:)
1103:”
1087:“
1068:)
1047:)
1027:,
1011:)
965:)
957:.
945:)
937:.
924:)
901:,
898:,
895:,
892:,
889:,
886:,
883:,
880:,
877:,
837:)
822:)
805:)
788:)
773:)
758:)
743:)
705:)
690:)
675:)
661:)
646:)
631:)
612:)
491:)
475:,
471:,
467:,
455:)
443:”
421:“
396:)
382:)
349:)
296:)
288:.
273:)
259:)
248:,
244:,
240:,
236:,
232:,
228:,
224:,
212:)
204:.
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1129:(
1111:(
1064:(
1043:(
1007:(
961:(
941:(
920:(
833:(
818:(
801:(
784:(
769:(
754:(
739:(
701:(
686:(
671:(
657:(
642:(
627:(
608:(
487:(
451:(
392:(
378:(
367:(
345:(
292:(
269:(
255:(
208:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.