Sparlock entry at Uncyclopedia

by IsaacJ22 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jeffro

  I've just rated at five stars the above Wikipedia link and suggest that as many others as possible ought to do so to preserve the entry.
  Looking at the deletion message, it seems to me that probably lots of JW's have been alerted by the WT and have been giving it a very low rating. Possibly the WT lawyers have been onto Wikipedia too.
  But we can do what we can.

  No. The article was submitted for deletion because it fails the criteria for inclusion. Popularity is not the benchmark for inclusion, and giving the article a star rating will not improve its suitability for inclusion. Unless/until the subject is covered in reliable sources (by Wikipedia's standards), it does not belong there.
• 

  DT

  The Sparlock entry on Wikipedia is well written. A lack of sources appears to be a problem. I wonder if the recent news articles in Norwegian would qualify. If they have to be in English, maybe a Norwegian Sparlock page could be set up and it could be translated into English.

  It would be nice to use the video itself as a source. I don't think Youtube videos qualify. It should eventually be available on JW.org (assuming the Watchtower Society isn't too embarrassed to post it). I also checked the Library of Congress and couldn't find it, but there are some othe Watchtower publications.
• 

  Jeffro

  It would be nice to use the video itself as a source.

  Primary sources (i.e. the video itself) cannot be used to establish notability.
• 

  Jeffro

  I wonder if the recent news articles in Norwegian would qualify.

  Aside from the fact that sources should be in English for the English Wikipedia, the Norwegian newspaper article mentions Sparlock. But it isn't about Sparlock, it is about the video. A similar source in English could be used for an article about the video (which would include mention of Sparlock), but not an article specifically about Sparlock itself. However, even then, a single source mentioning the video would not automatically justify the entire existing Wikipedia article, it would only justify what were covered in the source material. Such a source would therefore probably only warrant inclusion in a more general article about JW beliefs rather than its own article.
• 

  3Mozzies

  Vote for the Sparlock page to be a featured article:

  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:VFH/Sparlock

  :)
• 

  Chariklo

  Here is a perfectly reliable source for the Wikipedia article.

  From Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins, no less.

  http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/646112-anyone-heard-of-sparlock-the-new-ex-jehovah-s-witness-meme/comments?page=1

  Thanks to www.sparlock.info for making me aware of this.
• 

  Chariklo

  I've contested it on Wikipedia. I see a lot of other people have too. Possibly, we should have staggered our entries contesting it as they're all timed very close together.

  But still. Fingers crossed.
• 

  Leolaia

  Jeffro....I agree. It seems btw a better candidate for inclusion is the video itself, rather than a character from the video. But even then, these are the only reliable sources I could find that mention the video and Sparlock:

  http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3427958.ece (This article, while mentioning the incorrect Simpsons rumors as "rumors", gives both critical views and the response by Norway branch spokesman Øystein Gaathaug . The article states that the video is " eagerly discussed in the discussion forums on the web and social media" and "critics say the video shows how the faith community encourages its members to scare children into obedience," and also states that the wizard character Sparlock has its own fan website).

  http://www.oa.no/nyheter/article6133962.ece (A similar article, with response by Øystein Gaathaug . Focuses on the reaction to the video by one ex-JW. Does not mention the name of the toy per se).

  Might change as the summer conventions progress and more news sites might take note of the video release.
• 

  Cacky

  I hope it remains. I never heard of the uncyclopedia before. That was funny. I got lost on Wikipedia when I was trying to see what I could do to help save it. I think lack of references is the problem. Maybe if you say Sparlock is copyrighted by the Wathtower Bible and Tract Society, that would be one reference to prove its existence. Say the same about the video. (Or maybe you did, I already don't remember.)
• 

  Chariklo

  The notice at the top of the Wikipedia page is no longr red and it no longer says speedy deletion. It says due for deletion, but it looks as though they're thinking about it.