Talk:Bumvertising/Archives/2012

Unencyclopedic content

• I have deemed the following content to be unencyclopedic because it does not include a source; most of it hangs between common sense and conjecture; the rhetorical structure is of an argument rather than an article; and it includes unverifiable claims. Dystopos 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In high traffic areas, such as intersections many beggars hold up a sign describing their plight but most people that pass by do not contribute to the beggar. To an advertiser this could be a valuable resource to reach a broader audience. The homeless person will usually carry the sign for a small amount of money or food for a rather low expense to the advertiser. The cost to get the beggar to hold the sign is much cheaper than paying minimum wage to a person wearing a sandwich board or costume.

To the homeless person, carrying the extra sign is a negligible amount of extra effort to what they were already doing. They usually welcome the extra amount of income generated by carrying it.

Notable? Article name choice. Product or phenomenon?

The sources provided look like a rather brief news blip - it's not altogether clear to me that the "bumvertising" product name has necessarily received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:Notability. Also, it's not clear to me whether this is intended as an article solely about the trademarked product, or about "Homeless advertising" (the phrase used by one of the news sources) in general. If the latter, the article would most appropriately be moved to Homeless advertising to indicate its broader scope.

I don't think the idea of homeless advertising can be new - I remember musing about the idea myself on a discussion forum years ago. There should be many other examples to cite. Also, I'd be curious about the broader question of whether highly visible street people set fashion or other social trends (such as the damaged clothing seen in so many American department stores...). Wnt (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this really wikipedia worthy content?

Is it just me, or does this seem totally ludicrous of an article to consider encyclopedic? Looking into it in the first place, it was merely advertising, not to mention the fact that not only is it highly colloquial, it is also rather offensive and low class. I vote this be removed from Wikipedia. I just don't see how it's anything more than a bad joke, made to look like a legitimate encyclopedia article. Should I nominate for deletion to spark discussion? Pip (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be concern and discussion on this article, Pip. It's a bit awkward defensibly as a veritable help to the downtrodden. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I note that the article is using several youtube links for sources. --guyzero | talk 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the topic has been documented in suitable sources, then the article should be rewritten to be more informative and with a more encyclopedic tone. If not, then I agree (See above) --Dystopos (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a good discussion regarding this on my talk page where I really got into my opinion of this article, including Wikipedian reasons I think it isn't worthy of being an article here. I can past some of it here if you guys think it would be better. (I think I probably do so) I want to prod this to spark more discussion. Pip (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (Just added prod tag. Pip (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)) (And another addition: I've pasted Bob and my conversation from my talk page just below here for ease of discussion. Pip (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Bumvertising deletion discussion, from my talk page

I'm sticking this conversation that Bob and I had on my talk page to make things easier on everyone in this discussion, and to keep everything all in one place. Thanks! Pip (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Bob first responded to my original post on the talk page of Bumvertising.

Hi. I'd tend to agree that the Bumvertising article feels very fiddly. It troubled me in the Homelessness article and in its own right. I've tried to edit it in and out in bits but was uncertain how to approach the larger issue. It has gotten Seattle press, apparently. But of the oddest sort. I don't ever hear anyone talking about its being humanistic or philanthropic although it purports to be, which is really stretching it, in my gut. In fact, no serious person helping the homeless seems to talk about it or think it's actually appropriate as far as I know. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although it received press, I don't think it received press because it's humanitarian or socially accepted in any way. Just because something received press doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia And it's highly disrespectful, if you ask me. Nonetheless, it seems as though it has maintained it's place in Wikipedia despite that. I wouldn't think it would necessarily be bad to be bold and at least nominate it for deletion to get discussion going on it. What do you think? Thanks for responding... Maybe we should keep this discussion on the talk page of the article though. (We can just copy paste this if you agree) Pip (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pip. Thanks for your note. Well, I think "bumvertising" is a messy and sloppy realisation of charitable behaviour. It really doesn't help the homeless, in my opinion. It has maintained its place in Wikipedia and the article on Homelessness because similar practices seem to have done in Dickens' time with sandwich boards and people walking around London wearing them. But it's an unpleasent and uncomfortable charitable act -- which actually is not charitable at all morally. Article for deletion ? Well, it does smell of someone's shameless self-promotion of the practice in that it's in Wikipedia already ... people have tried to take it out I think. I don't think it's a real helping item but exploitational of the downtrodden. I actually would prefer it were not in Wikipedia but I can't make a strong enough case to myself to cause its deletion unless the WP community feels similarly. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's well said, and agree entirely. I would almost flag it CSD:G11, Blatant Advertising... If you look at the history of the "article" and the way it's written, it looks like something I would flag that way if it showed up on New Pages while I was on patrol, regardless of it's generally unencyclopedic content. Then if you move on to the nature of the topic, again independently from it's rather offensive side, it's also something I would consider for CSD: A7, non notable organization. If, since CSD: A7 is a lower standard than Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." That's how I'd go about making the argument. Pip (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pip. Thanks for your kindest reply. I am in agreement with you. Perhaps it should be put up for discussion before a deletion. However, in a rather oblique moralistic way, since the practice and exploitation goes back to Dickens' time, a purpose might be served to leave it in the article to show how business try to exploit the poor and afflicated and downtrodden - as a cautionary tale. I'll defer to your good judgement on this but keep me up to date and let me know if you need my help. Bests ever and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response to my original query as well. :) (I love the cool people I've been "meeting" and talking to since I've gotten more into Wikipedia. xD Awesome. Anyway - I think it'd be worth a proposed deletion, that way it'll spark discussion. There's a lot less discussion than I would have expected on the article. We'll see. I think about it, and I'll definitely keep you updated. :) Pip (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) Excellent, Pip ! It's my great pleasure as well for the interaction. It does seem like a fiddly item to insert in the poor battered article on Homelessness (since we are all getting rid of constant vandalism which might say something implicitly about people's feelings on the sad plight of homeless and poor people). Let alone to do in reality with Bumvertising. But it's historically precedented. One is reminded of Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" -- "Are there no workhouses?". Yeah. Good thing the story ended on a different note. Please keep me updated. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose the deletion of this article. I first saw Bumvertising on the news in 2005, and have heard of its operation periodically and most recently just last week on the radio. Bumvertising is a concept, whether people agree with it or not, that is a prominent piece of popular culture and modern advertising.Wolfautomotive1 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello - please discuss here. Pip (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)