Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeros and ones

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zeros and ones

Non-notable BBS. RickK 06:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote for now. Can any of this information be corroborated by an external third party? --GRider\^talk 18:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to binary. Meelar (talk) 21:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Please read my defense on the article's Talk page. If anyone desires it, I will copy it here. — Xiong (talk) 00:11, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Then create a new redirect to binary. ComCat 02:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The quote 'Relax, it's all just zeroes and ones' is a rather common message tagline, and I find the unsubstantiated implication that it would have originated on this BBS rather bold. Delete as NN, then replace with redirect to binary. Radiant_* 09:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be titled Zeroes and ones? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to binary. DaveTheRed 18:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not to get contentious, but has anyone asking for a redirect read the article itself? zeros and ones (all lowercase) was the BBS name. Binary is a disambiguation page and nothing in there refers to a BBS by name or BBS's in general. And, no, it was never named "zeroes and ones". And no, I don't maintain that the BBS originated the slogan; it was named after the slogan and adopted it as its motto. — Xiong (talk) 02:18, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • We realize that the article is about a BBS. The point is that we do not believe it to be a notable BBS that should have its own article, or even be mentioned in Wikipedia. And you are correct, since binary is a disambig, we should probably redirect to Binary numeral system. DaveTheRed 05:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure I'm missing the point. The BBS has nothing whatever to do with the binary numeral system. It doesn't make any sense whatever to redirect a user who is looking for information about the BBS to a page discussing binary*anything. If the article is deleted, there's no point replacing it with a redirect. Nothing points to it that does not point to it in the sense of a BBS name; check it out.

I seriously doubt that many editors will create a link of the form zeros and ones that desires to point to the binary system of notation. The more common form, when discussing the binary system, is ones and zeros (118K Google hits vs. 74K)

As for "notable", well, gee, we've got at least 22 distinct articles, each one profiling a single Pokemon character. I admit I know little about Pokemon, but just shooting straight from the hip, I'd be willing to agree that whichever 1 or 2 characters are most important within the Pokemon world might be sufficiently "notable" to pass the test. But all 22? Not to mention (literally) dozens of articles about every detail and aspect of the world of Pokemon, including several categories, subcategories, and sub-sub categories. This is not so much a set of articles about Pokemon as a wikification of the game itself; I worry about infringement. Personally, I would not like to be the one to defend Regirock in a VfD. But you don't see me over there tearing it down, either.

I offer a bone to those who, I suspect, doubt the mere existence of zeros and ones. I believe it is still in operation; at any rate the domain is up: [1]. If you're wondering why there is no content on the page other than a pretty background, it's probably because they are inside discussing, among other things, hacking, phreaking, piracy, and all the other 3l33t topics BBSs were known for. Like most former dial-ups, I suspect they've made the transition to the net, but you'd need a First Class client to connect. I'll see if I can dig that out.

Searching for tracks of this BBS on the web may be very difficult. BBSs, taken together, were an extremely closed world in some ways. Many illegal things were discussed (and some done), plus an aura of danger, secrecy, and mystique was cultivated for its own sake. Each BBS maintained lists of other BBSs, but these lists were not published in other media (for obvious reasons). The rise of the net, with similar subcultures, coincided with and brought about the decline of the dial-up BBS; users made the transition, but few systems.

While researching, I have come across a few more recent references to entities named "zeros and ones". If this article survives, I should like it renamed to zeros and ones BBS; zeros and ones itself should be a disambiguation.

I have no idea why this article upsets Wikipedians so much. I find it hard to believe it is just that we feel this BBS was insufficiently influential -- I'd be happy to reduce the claim if that would satisfy anyone. In some way, the article must touch a raw nerve or violate a taboo, and I do wish Somebody would be more explicit.

— Xiong (talk) 09:15, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

• When dealing with websites and BBS's, Wikipedia tends to only have articles on those that are notable. There are literally millions of BBSs on the web. Having articles for all of them would be unencyclopedic. Your analogy with Pokemon is falacious, because while Pokemon may not be important in the grand scheme of life, Pokemon is instantly recognizable to a large number of people, and therefore notable in its own right. The bottom line is that zeros and ones is not notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. Therefore the only options are to either delete it outright, or to redirect somewhere that it might do some good. Since zeros and ones is a conceivable search string someone might use when searching for the binary numeral system, I argue that we should redirect there. Hope this explaination is helpful. DaveTheRed 07:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't touch a nerve or violate a taboo with me. I've been part of the BBS scene and there are thousands of BBS'es, for many of which the claims you make about illegal discussions or happenings, or society impact, are equally valid. The point is that the BBS scene as a whole is notable and merits articles, but an individual BBS in general does not (along the same lines, we have articles on the Internet but not on each individual website). Radiant_* 13:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've been in touch with Gil Burns, the zeros and ones sysop. He says the BBS (like so many of its time) is no longer running, but he has graciously sent me some of the old graphics, which I intend to unpack and add to the article.

I don't think the discussions of blue boxes and occasional exchange of contraband were themselves "notable". Rather, it was the spirit in which these discussions were conducted -- often acrimonious -- and the philosophy which enabled the community to survive contention: It's all just zeros and ones! While I don't assign credit to the BBS for originating the slogan, it did assume it as its name and put it forward at every opportunity; thus the BBS is a notable step in the slogan's etymology.

I didn't compare zeros and ones to Pokemon. I compared an article on zeros and ones to the article Regirock. Can you, without visiting that page, name a single characteristic of the subject of this article? I certainly cannot, but let me go look again:

"Regirock was sealed away by people long ago....Its body is composed entirely of rocks." Well, that is certainly notable. There does not seem to be a single thought in this article that is not copied directly from its single reference: [2]. I wonder if Nintendo might not consider the large repository of similar articles, taken together, infringement.

More accurately, I am comparing the class of articles written about online communities to the class of articles written about individual characters within fictional universes. Am I the only person who feels that a group of live human beings and their doings is at least as "notable" as a rectangle of cardboard with a rather hastily-drawn imaginary character upon it? — Xiong (talk) 15:07, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

• I believe that live humans are more important than characters from pokemon. But not necessarily more notable. Regirock is instantly recognizable to hundreds of thousands of pokemon fans. Can you say that your BBS is instantly recognizable to hundreds of thousands of people? None of this is relevant, because an article must be notable in its own right. The fact that there exists an article that you think is less notable has no bearing on whether this one should be kept. DaveTheRed 18:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme weak delete. There is nothing here in this article that is particularly distinctive or notable. Compare, for example, to Monochrome BBS or Rusty n Edie's BBS. If this article is improved, please contact me on my talk page and I will reconsider my vote. —RaD Man (talk) 19:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Withdraw -- I have looked at both the BBS articles to which you refer; they are mighty thin. The one under consideration is thinner still, but I expect to bring it up to the minimal standard set by Monochrome and Rusty & Edie. As I said, I'm in touch with the former sysop; he's sent me some graphics from the site, and I can probably pump him for a lot more content. Nor have I entirely given up mining my own archives or the web at large, particularly Usenet archives.

But all of this is *promises*. I agree with DaveTheRed that a big pile of rubbish over there does not justify a little pile of rubbish over here that might someday prove "notable". I hope I am permitted to withdraw the article in question and join the concensus to delete. I have moved the existing content and Talk to a user subpage, User:Xiong/Zeros and ones BBS. I'll develop it there and put it back on when I have more to show for it. The move has left a redirect, which in accordance with concensus I have altered to redirect to Binary. — Xiong (talk) 02:20, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I altered the redirect to point to binary numeral system, since I think that's the more useful redirect for now. DaveTheRed 06:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:31, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.