Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that this content is not supported by coverage in secondary sources, and as such is excessive in-universe plot detail that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. If someone has genuine intent to transwiki it somewhere useful I will happily assist by undeleting it somewhere temporarily, but consensus is clear it does not belong in Wikipedia in anything like this form. ~
mazca
talk
01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD) •
Afd statistics
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The article is full of
original research, it's written with
an in-universe perspective and the text is material for a
fansite, not Wikipedia. There is nothing
notable here that isn't already covered in the many other
Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, none of the references seem to be
reliable
sources and the content doesn't have
real-world notability. I believe that this article is a perfect example of
fancruft and therefore should be deleted.
Jfgslo (
talk)
21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
This one is pretty hard...although it does have some real-world information with "gianax terms" it is unsourced, and the rest is primarially in-universe, plot related. It can't be helped. I go for Delete.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Way too specific for the topic, although it is a huge article. All in-universe. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheFSaviator (
talk •
contribs)
22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Keep: Sourcing is (kinda) easy to the episodes, but difficult to do in other fashions. That aside, it explains the tech for an anime series that's widely known and acclaimed. Any anime fan who has some interest in learning about it would find it valuable since there are a lot of fictitious concepts, technologies and so on that have been explained here. I always thought/expected that anime should be treated similar to comics and allow for a lot of "in-universe" stuff - so I do not see a problem with the in-verse stuff either. On a final note, I always try to weigh the interest of the intended audience as a determining factor for notability. The article's intended audience is (1) NGE fans, and (2) anime fans (and possibly (3) fantasy/sci-fi fans). In that respect, it's far more notable and contains topics debated and discussed numerous places. I'm always saddened when people forget to look at the intended audience and how notable a subject is in their realm of interest. There are a lot of scientific articles that would be deleted pretty quickly with that same rationale applied.
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
22:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Not quite. Although it is OK to write about in-game/in-comic fictional places/events/technologies, it should generally be kept inside of other articles or inside articles about episodes. Even in a show as large as the simpsons, dedicated in-universe articles like this are generally not accepted. Please read Wikipedia's article on
Fancruft. Thanks, TheFSAviator •
T
22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You mistake fancruft for what this is. And Simpsons is a very bad comparison, as there is no technology that needs or warrants such explanations. And numerous other shows do have similar sections. But, more importantly, "Article A doesn't do that" is not accepted justification in such matters. As one example, since you've chosen that inappropriate road to travel down, want to hazard a guess as to how many such articles Star Trek and Star Wars have? Sometimes even articles about specific, individual technological items. You mistake what you disapprove of as fancruft because you dont see the relevance, notability or need for such. Go tell that to the Star Trek and Star Wars fans who maintain the dozens of pages on ST and SW technology and I am sure they will tell you they disagree vehemently with you - as I do (sans the vehement part) on this issue. Best, Rob
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I just want to point out that comparing scientific articles, which deal with real world events, with an article about fiction is a
false analogy. Also note that
derivative articles about fictional works are frowned upon by Wikipedia. And if other fictional series have similar glossaries, that doesn't mean that they are in accordance with the guidelines. Quite the contrary. It just shows that not many have bothered to check what should and shouldn't be covered by Wikipedia. Note that many of the stand-alone articles that you cited have multiple issues or are part of another main topic.
Jfgslo (
talk)
00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
Other articles don't relate to this issue. That just means they have either reached a consensus that Star Trek is notable enough to have it's own articles, or they simply aren't following WP policy. Either way, it's not an excuse to have a huge miscellany article about 1 anime series.
- Umm, I suspect that wont go well... since that hasn't been done with the ST or SW tech articles.
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
23:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- RObert 1) some wikiprojects are more stricter than most. It appears anime wikiproject is more strict than comics when it comes to in-universe information. 2)You can't justify an article for who it's intended for. Articles are meant to be read by anyone, you stated 3 types of fans, that clearly isn't notable. 3) too much in-universe and not from a real world point of view. the very few things it has is small and have no citation. 4) Comparing articles in order to keep, delete, or preserve isn't good. thats WP:OTHERSTUFF and some of those you mentioned are also not notable enough to be kept. This is most defintely fancruft. Not for the article idea, but for what it has and how it's described.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You misinterpreted most of what I said. (1) the anime wikiproject is not necessarily more strict (in this regard) than the comics project - the standards currently being attempted to be applied are, (2) I'm justifying notability based on how notable it is to those who would know about the genre (anime, sci-fi, fantasy) - by your rationale, 90% of every scientific article needs to be removed, (3) solved with an "in universe" tag, just as is used in sci-fi stuff and comics and books, (4) that was my point above (please re-read what I wrote... I was pretty clear on making the same point) - my secondary point was that even if the other editor still wanted to use that justification, s/he was wrong - inotherwords, wrong either way... And finally, you define it as fancruft - I do not. That's no hard and fast line. It's your (and others) opinion that it's fancruft, while mine is contrary.
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
How is our opinion "fancruft"? Are you sure you even read the guideline???? 1)If we have stricter guidelines, than so be it. maybe the comics ikiproject should have stricter guiselines too. 2)You basically admitted, "notability" to you is based on the personal beliefs rather than WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. 3) That's not solving anything, thats basically admitting theres a problem. 4) Then it's pretty clear, there is no real reason within wikipedia standards that this should be kept. for you're second point, i'm not talking about reasoning is fancruft, i'm talkinga bout the article.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Stop twisting my words. (0) I never said your opinion is fancruft. I said it is your opinion that it is fancruft. The GUIDELINE on that is indicative of how subjective that can be - and hence we are here. (1) I never admitted to such, nor do I see the GUIDELINES being applied as you imply they are. (2) I admitted no such thing. Again, dont twist my words. It does not fail WP:V or WP:NOTE - it just needs citations - something I agreed with above as well. (3) it isn't admitting there is a problem, it's explaining how the page is written. (4) Wrong, I said neither premise proposed by the other editor applied. Again, dont twist my words. Please, really, spend more time reading what I wrote so your responses dont end up (unintentionally of course) twisting what I am saying into something entirely different. Either that, or if you cant spend enough time doing it, then please dont bother replying until you actually have the chance to read what I wrote. It just wastes both of our time. Best,
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
01:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
i'm not trying to twist your words. you should just be clearer and be simpler. i'm just going to say that it's not notable to wikipedia standards. You said it is notable to those who know the subject well, thats basically saying that it's notable to those who know about it , not to wikipedia standards. admitting an article is in=universe is a BAD thing in wikipedia, because we strive for out of universe point of view. And i'm pretty sure, no one has verified the article yet. And considering the size of the article, i would say it isn't. Also violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:IINFO.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- First, I never ever ever said it's only notable to those who know the subject well. I said it was notable to a broad group of people.
- Maybe I am going about this the wrong way:
- The content is citable (even though it's largely not at the moment)
- The content is notable in numerous respects... (and citable) and has been used as inspiration for other anime (such as Aquarion)
- The article DOES have numerous flaws - but those are correctable
- The article is written in universe, which *I* am fine with... but... it can easily be rewritten in real world format
- AFAIR, the way the guidelines apply, with those criteria and issues noted above, fixing the article should be the primary goal - as opposed to deleting it. And for that, the better venue would be a request at the Anime Wikiproject.
- The proposal to include/merge the content with the main article seems ludicrous to me, since we all know that such an action will then bring up the problem/concern that the main article is too long and needs to be trimmed of information.
- Hope that helps spell it out better, and in a fashion that's easier to understand without confusing my meaning for something totally contrary to what I have already said. Best,
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- if it's citable, then prove it. it's a little too late to say "it can be" when it's nominated for deletion. I've tried looking for third party information, Do you realize how hard it is to look for information about these speccific subjects? I dont know if you realize this, but most of this is original research. This maybe the most remembered series, but it's not the most covered.
- most of the content is not notable at the moment. citable? again, you're going to have to prove that.
- Depends if its' really notable. which most of the content isn't. THeres a list of locales, list of weapons and equipment, list of miscelaneous too. I agree some information can be preserved but as an article, i doubt it could. the article name basically screams for trivia.
- we should aways be "nuetral", and you personally, isn't reasssuring. Maybe, because your more familiar with other articles that are.
- ^^this tag proves it's not a good thing.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Fine, though I still disagree with various of your points, I'd support
Scavenge for salvageable content AND THEN delete. Does that sound like a decent proposal? I'd spend the time fixing the article - which
especially when it's up for deletion, is appropriate (that too is a guideline, btw), but honestly, I'm already working on 5 other articles (two in my userspace, and three others that aren't there (which I am working on offline)), and I am VERY slow at content creation. I'd
never get the current mess into something people would want to save in the time remaining. That leaves scavenging usable content or premises for the main NGE article since I am sure no one else will step up to salvage the current article under discussion.
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
02:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
- Ummm, that's what I was trying to suggest above. ;-) I dont expect us to keep the trivia stuff - just merge what's appropriate to where it's appropriate (to whichever of the articles you have listed that is appropriate for whichever salvageable piece of info). As for cites, I havent looked recently, but I had a few years ago, and found tons of them. That may have changed with the delay in the live action and such - perhaps that's where the problem is, and where there is such an incongruency between what you're seeing and what I saw. I haven't had time to look recently, though I will trust your word on it. Best,
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
02:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
But you suggest to "keep" instead of "redirect". i'm saying there is no information on the glossary to keep it independent.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No.... really... stop and read what I wrote... I think I made it very clear directly above. I even BOLDED it. Let me help you by making it simpler. I am currently suggesting:
- Scavenge for SALVAGEABLE content and then DELETE <---------------
- Really makes me wonder when you cannot notice something I so clearly bolded above. Note the words "SALVAGEABLE content" (in line with what you yourself suggested in relationship to the other articles) and "DELETE".
- You're continuing to fight a battle that doesn't exist, no matter how I bold my current recommendation. So please, slow down and read what I wrote, since we've both agreed to pretty much the same thing. It looks kinda silly when we are arguing over the same thing. ;-)
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
18:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You're making this a battle ground. I'm just stating what you said with different words. you said salvage what is notalbe (redirect info to other articles) and then delete. and i've read what you said already.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
so which is it? keep, merge, delete, or redirect?
- Stop already. Really. And please don't accuse me of making this a battleground because you twist my every post (I haven't accused you of trolling, even though you keep turning my intent into something near opposite of what it actually says - nor do I intend to). Just stop.
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --
• Gene93k (
talk)
02:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- strong Delete: all in-universe, full of original research, not a single independant secondary source thus non-notable. Wikipedia articles are not made for a specific minority of fans, but for everyone, and notability is not defined according to the "intended audience", but by a set of criteria, established by the community, and which were precisely made to garantee that no article will be written exclusively for fans (hence the mandatory independant secondary sources). RobertMfromLI, if you want to write articles geared toward NGE/Anime/SF fans, I'm sure you'll find tons of fanwikis out there, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a
fansite. And please, try to avoid misplaced comparisons between fictional technology and real world science.
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
13:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I have written zero anime articles, and plan on writing zero anime articles. Nor was I using real world stuff as a comparison - I was pointing out that another editor should not compare this article to others because such rationale was flawed for those same reasons you (and I) mentioned.
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN
22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Aids in the understanding of a very notable series. It revolutionized the industry, changing how anime was done. It has generated billions of dollars from the episodes, movies, games, and merchandising. There are books written about it
[1] however you can easily confirm the definition in the primary source. If there is no possible reason to doubt the information in the primary source, then there is no reason not to use it(example: a celebrity might lie in their own biography about themselves, however a fictional character is not able to do so, all information about them there).
Dream Focus
00:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete- excessive
plot summary and
fan trivia. What little of this article is actually sourced to anything is sourced entirely to
the works themselves and the rest is
fan interpretation. The fact that a series is popular does not mean that a huge proliferation of
crufty articles is OK, nor does it turn enthusiastic fan chatter into an encyclopedia article.
Reyk
YO!
00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Agree with dream focus. Unlike other Anime, this one actually requires you to read as much as you can find to understand what all the psychological and religious references are all about. Of course, if fan interpretation is the problem, then more facts would do it good.
Usws (
talk)
13:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- If you want to understand the psychological and religious references, everything is already in the main article, there is no need of a glossary since this article doesn't even mention any of these references. It is only about fictional technology which doesn't require any further reading. Usws, I think you don't even know what this article is about...
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
15:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The article defines more than just the fictional technology, but other things as well. Understanding everything about it is important to understand the series. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia for Neon Genesis Evangelion, as the template shows
[2], and you don't need to keep redefining every single thing in each article that mentions something. A greater overall understanding of everything is listed here, in the glossary article.
Dream Focus
15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Again, you're wrong, this article is mostly about fictional technology and places/organizations that are tied to technology, so 100% trivial. And no, it is not important to understand "everything" to understand the series. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to replace the viewing of a show or to replicate the viewer's experience, they're not guidebooks to the show and thus aren't supposed to help readers "understand everything". The plot summary in the main Eva article is enough, as it already provides everything the readers need in one place. Not every single thing about the plot of Eva is worth mentionning. Besides, this AfD is not about readers understanding everything Eva-related, it is about the fact that this article blatantly violates at least 4 or 5 WP policies, and it will be deleted whether you like it or not.
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
16:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- transfer to wikia I know that their is commentary on the symbolism of many of those terms. However, others - like the UN - I know there isn't anything meaningful. It isn't able to stand alone as a glossary, but perhaps an article for
Symbolism of Neon Genesis Evangalion with that commentary could be created at a later point. There is some info here that should be
WP:PRESERVED, but its also full of trival info and the article itself could not stand as it is as a glossary.
陣
内
Jinnai
17:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I already transferred it wikia, with its entire history.
http://evangelion.wikia.com/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_glossary but I still say its valuable as a resource of understanding here. Perhaps if someone just added a link to where this information could be found, that'd be an easy way to do this. Since yesterday I became one of the administrators at that wikia, I can not add the links myself, under the rules. Can someone do that in the main article please?
Dream Focus
18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- A lot of that information is irrelivant. The stuff on the UN is largely irrelivant because its basically describing what the UN and how it gets its military force (from member nations for specific operations). Antartica doesn't need its own description. You already have info on the First Impact elsewhere.
- That's the problem when you don't have context for what is importantant. Things get out of control and you end up with something like this. A list of terms, some which are important to understanding the work and commented on, some which aren't and many which repeat plot info.[While it doesn't have to meet the
WP:GNG since its a list, it still needs to meet
WP:SALAT and a listing of terms for a franchise without context as to their relevance isn't good enough. If it were, I could come up with tens if not hundreds of such lists deserving to be created.
陣
内
Jinnai
19:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No, its already where it belongs, in the Neon Genesis Evangelion wikia, full history and all.
[3]. No need shoving into a general holding area, when a proper place for it has been found.
Dream Focus
09:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Gwern, I don't see any bad faith in the nomination, on the contrary, it's very factual and written with good sense. I think you know very well that in notability issues, by "reliable sources" we mean independent secondary sources, ie sources that are not the show itself, and that are not tied to the show in anyway (ie databooks written by the authors/producers of the show). These sources could of course work very well among others, but to determine notability, we must see whether the subject has real-world coverage in general sources, otherwise it is restricted to the small world of the show itself and its fandom, and thus doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia.
I'm very surprised, and disappointed (given your efficiency in finding high-level academic sources), to see that you resort to an obscure wikitionary entry to defend obvious fancruft. Of course, I think you know that we absolutely don't need to have a definition for each term ever coined in the show. I think your know very well that most of it is trivial, obscure, and doesn't bring anything relevant to the academic/encyclopedic study of Evangelion. As an experienced contributor, you're certainly well aware that it is a
plot-only approach, and that it should be avoided, since the plot summary in the main article already provides enough information to the readers (anything else would only matter to hardcore fans, and they have their own websites to deal with this kind of things). As for any other article you may think unnecessary, you're free to AfD it, as others are to AfD this one. But here, we're only talking about the glossary, anything else is irrelevant.
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
09:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Folken, I see plenty of bad-faith. First, RS has not been redefined as 'independent secondary sources'; primary sources are reliable sources. Second, even if I had adopted this narrow definition, there are 2 independent secondary sources cited (Fujie & Broderick), and perhaps 3 or 4 depending on how you slice some of the others (NGE 2 & the Newtype books). Either way, the nom's description is flat out wrong and he either knew it (in which case he was lying) or he didn't read the article (bad faith for an AfD nominator).
- As for sources, I cannot defend or improve anything until I know what might pass through the needle's eye.
Protoculture Addicts devotes a dozen pages over 2 or 3 issues to covering Eva gear (eg pages ~24-29 of PA 39); but its source is the show and Newtype books tied to Gainax. So, is that an independent secondary source, showing notability, or is it a useless derivative? I feel sure that whatever it is, it won't help this article. --
Gwern
(contribs) 23:18 24 November 2010 (GMT)
- Again, you're trying to justify an article by a different whether or not they meet the same quality or if the other articles are even notable themselves. If you want to play that game, we can AfD every article that you mention that doesn't meet the general notability guideline. No one here is comparing, only dream focus, and in fact it's being avoided. Mainly due to WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- BN, I would be thrilled if you went and AfDed all the articles I mentioned. Let's get some clarity here, see what the Wikipedia community really thinks about these articles. (You want to improve Wikipedia - those articles are just as 'problematic'. Lay off the Eva articles for a while!) I suspect the community doesn't share the 'delete them all, Jimbo will know his own' view. --
Gwern
(contribs) 23:18 24 November 2010 (GMT)
- You can AFDed those articles yourself, i could do it, but i rather focus on what i know best. And like a certain user has said, it's not whether how many votes there are, but how strong the reasoning is. One series at a time, and even then I'm focused on others. But NGE series needs serious work and leaving it alone wouldn't do any good. NGE articles are barely run by anyone. leaves enough time for certain users who get isolated in these forgotten articles think Wikipedia standards don't apply to them because no one out there to stop them. And i've seen it before many times. You probably aren't aware of it yourself, but that's the sort of thinking that gets into users when they themselves become consensus.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
(Writing here to avoid too long comment) Gwern, if there is bad faith here it is on your side. This is an AfD, we're not assessing the quality of the sourcing, but the notability, and the
general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article [...] "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". As for sourcing in general,
WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." If you want to contribute to WP, you have to play by its rules. Also, we're trying to assess the general notability of the topic, and the secondary sources must be about the topic itself, not just about individual elements not directly pertaining to it ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"). I don't see how sourcing the pronunciation of the word "Seele" to Broderick would make an Evangelion glossary notable. This info could actually be located anywhere and is not proving the need of a glossary. Same for the Fujie source, which only quotes dialogues to retrace one event in Adam's backstory. I see nothing here advocating for a glossary of each term (creatures, organization, places, concepts) ever coined by the show. Also, video games based on the show or databooks are not independent secondary sources, since both are directly tied to the show through licensing/sponsoring contracts, and/or authorial implication.
The nomination is not wrong in any way. Identify what would be wrong according to you, and say why it would be wrong by citing precise examples. Otherwise, your claims mean nothing. If the nom' was really wrong, I guess the majority of people here would have noticed it and would not have supported it. And accusing the nominator of "lying" is a blatant
personnal attack, and this kind of behavior has nothing to do here (or anywhere else).
The Protoculture Addicts article to which you refer may appear to be a reliable source, but given the number of people who deem this kind of article non-notable, one source won't be enough, notability means significant coverage. In fact, even if we could find reliable sources, the problems of
in-universe perspective and
plot-only approach would remain.
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
09:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete A clear example of excessive detail that would only be interested by a very small group of dedicated fans. Reading though some of the "entries" I've noticed a large amount of
original research and original synthesis and I strongly suspect that a lot of the content is simply made up by fans as well. Defining these "terms" does not actually help readers understand the contents of the main article or the plot summaries. This is the type of thing that typically belongs on a fansite, but
not in an encyclopedia. —
Farix (
t |
c)
15:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Doesn't appear to have proper sourcing (or potential). Also, if I'm not mistaken, the independent sources we're looking for should be reliable independent glossaries of the series, not just sources for individual terms. As Bread Ninja said, this just screams for trivia. If any content is ever needed from this article, then it can be unearthed by an admin or copied from Wikia. No reason to leave such a crufty target lying around. --
Kraftlos (
Talk |
Contrib)
06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, no secondary sources. Terms have no currency outside the show.
Abductive (
reasoning)
12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It is a clear outcome in this case.
The keep !votes are almost entirely from new accounts located in the relevant local area. It is also reasonable to believe that at least some of those !votes were procured by an "email" referred to by one of them. Even so, these keep !votes universally fail to support the inclusion of the article by reference to accepted inclusion standards such as
WP:N and
WP:GNG. The remaining keeps (eg MichaelQSchmidt) do, but it is clear that the view that the subject has received significant coverage does not have consensus. The delete !voters have acknowledged the existence of some sources - in particular coverage of the legal action and one other article in "Eastside City Arts" - but have formed the view that the coverage is not significant. That view has a clear consensus support by reference to accepted inclusion standards.
Mkativerata (
talk)
18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
Eastside Sun (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD) •
Afd statistics
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Very low on reliable sources to show
notability. The
website shows a current issue, despite the previous notice that publication was ceasing. I'd say, unless we can find sourcing that explains exactly what the heck is going on with this paper, we shouldn't be covering it.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. --
Jclemens-public (
talk)
15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --
Jclemens-public (
talk)
15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment "whats going on" isn't the concern. The concern is reliable sources showing this newspaper meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion (
WP:GNG). Many newspapers are notable and newspapers often have public interest, but sources are still needed to substantiate whether or not they have gained notice. I'm not seeing them. It's not clear this is more than a small local paper of the same kind as many other non-notable small local papers.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection..... nor a
directory nor a
medium for advertizing etc.
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep and improve/source, as the text of the second source does assert notability ("the sometimes-controversial monthly publication") -- should be easy enough to find some coverage. --
rahaeli (
talk)
22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep We'd hate to lose the article about our town's newspaper from Wikipedia. But to be fair, Wikipedia's description of The Eastside Sun has been incorrect for nearly a year and the person(s) that put the incorrect information in the entry then LOCKED the info so that anyone reading it would be led to believe the newspaper was out of print and the correct information couldn't be inserted. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.178.97.106 (
talk)
22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —
68.178.97.106 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I find it interesting that a newspaper with as many detractors as The Eastside Sun seems to have (I live in Kirkland) would fall under the eye of SarekOfVulcan. Since June of last year this fellow has repeatedly trimmed down this article, inserted erroneous information and finally locked the article. Seems like there may be something petty and personal going on here that Wikipedia should strive to rise above. My name is Ted Warnock and I approved this message. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.134.142.41 (
talk)
22:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —
64.134.142.41 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- Keep Plenty of sources discussing dispute with City of Kirkland and accusations of civil rights violations
[8]. That the paper continues to be published is obvious
[9] and easily verified. Makes me wonder why there is so much antagonism to the article and making its contents accurate. Troubling.
PicodeGato (
talk)
23:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The previous comment belongs to a sockpuppet of banned user
ChildOfMidnight (
talk ·
contribs). User pages are tagged PicodeGato-> — Freakshownerd -> ChildOfMidnight.
Brianhe (
talk)
02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Something funny going on I got this email too about Wikipedia trying to delete The Eastside Sun article as well as keeping incorrect information about the Sun being out-of-business. Using incorrect article info to destroy a business does seem below Wikipedia's standards BUT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DELETE ANYTHING THEY WANT SINCE IT'S A PRIVATE WEBSITE.
Is SarekOFVulcan a shill for an enemy of The Sun newspaper? Probably. Looking through 'History' for the article shows a surprising number of entries by him/her. But again THAT'S HIS RIGHT. No one should take ANYTHING in Wikipedia to be the truth since it can be changed by anyone.
oth for and against, the actions of this newspaper.
Since it's been publishing for 5 years and - with the exception of a 3 or 4 month hiatus - has been distributed throughout Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and Woodinville (that I know of) it certainly isn't out of business or defunct. I pick it up at George's the first of every month.
So, if you keep it, here are my suggested changes:
- Remove 'The Eastside Sun was' and replace it with 'The Eastside Sun is'
- Remove The Eastside Sun from 'Defunct Newspapers'
- Remove sidebar notation about The Eastside Sun ceasing publication
- ADD there is an ongoing federal investigation into civil rights violations (my daughter was interviewed).
- IF Sarek won't allow these changes I suggest you delete the entire article since lying about this company's very existence is below Wikipedia's standards and obviously meant to hurt the newspaper financially. Who would buy advertising in a defunct publication as Wikipedia states?
I don't know how to sign this so it must go in as unsigned. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.164.8.22 (
talk)
23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —
71.164.8.22 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- Keep I have to agree with the people before me, The Eastside Sun appears to be much more than a simple small town newspaper. there are lots of comments and sources both for and against this publication. Like PicodeGato above, I find the handling of this article very troubling. When 2 or 3 registered Wikipedia editors are responsible for 40 or 50 changes, deletions and blocks I think we need to look at those editors and not only the object of the article. In repnse to rahaeli at top, I looked back in history a couple of years and there was a LOT more sourced information, but it has been winnowed down by these same 3 editors. Troubling indeed.
EvergreenDuck (
talk)
00:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)—
EvergreenDuck (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- This story covers the publisher and the paper as well
[10].
PicodeGato (
talk)
00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The previous comment belongs to a sockpuppet of banned user
ChildOfMidnight (
talk ·
contribs). User pages are tagged PicodeGato-> — Freakshownerd -> ChildOfMidnight.
Brianhe (
talk)
02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Well at least Wikipedia has part of the correct information on this newspaper. they speak of it in present tense but still have the right hand column showing it as having "ceased" publication. I noticed that SarekOfVulcan has been the one fighting to keep the erroneous information in place. I wonder why?—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.78.226.208 (
talk •
contribs) —
184.78.226.208 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Local monthly periodicals are not especially notable, and this one lack sources to show notability. In fact, it has very little in the way of verifiable sources in the first place, and those sources are contradictory. Since we have had repeated issues with this article that are made worse by the lack of verifiable information, the fact that notability is not shown means it should be deleted. I am open to being convinced to keep by better quality sources, however. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
07:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Sarek. This newspaper isn't worth all the hassles it bring with it.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete no significant coverage of this newspaper.
Goodvac (
talk)
07:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Paper is too local and too obscure to be notable, under the WP:N criteria, as evidenced by the lack of non-trivial reliable sources. The large amount of canvassing of friends and associates is not helping the article's case.--
resident
(talk)
11:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Non-notable local newspaper with no significant independent coverage or recognition and no evidence of historical notability.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
12:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Keep, we have plenty of articles on local weekly and monthly papers. I see no reason to start deleting them all. If we had a guideline with respect to circulation it would be a good bright-line for local newspapers. Lacking that, newspapers typically don't report on their competitors, so lack of sources is in no way surprising and I don't think non-notability can be assumed from this.
Yworo (
talk)
18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Merge to
Kirkland, Washington. There are sufficient sources for that.
Yworo (
talk)
03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As above delete reasons
Signed by Barts1a
Suggestions/complements?
Complaints?
22:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Not enough good sources to warrant inclusion.
The Eskimo (
talk)
23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete given that basic facts cannot, apparently, be established.
Drmies (
talk)
03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or Merge: It is a local entertainment paper, and does not seem to be notable enough to merit an article. As it stands now, I could see it being merged into
Kirkland, Washington as Yworo suggested.
Susan118
talk
04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as noted above, this newspaper is essentially a local paper with nothing to make it stand out from thousands of similar papers. There's no sourcing, none really available, and the paper itself is small and doesn't seem to be notable on its own. A mention in the
Kirkland, Washington article would be appropriate, but beyond that it's not really article material.
Tony Fox
(arf!)
17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Keep - as noted above, the same editors that keep trying to delete this article (Sarek, Susan118, Toy Fox, etc) are the same people who - according to History - kept placing incorrect info and locking this article. The rash of 'Delete' comments above only goes to show the organized effort to destroy this newspaper —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EvergreenDuck (
talk •
contribs)
18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —
EvergreenDuck (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, user expressed a separate "keep" opinion above.
reply
- Curses! He's blown our cover, guys. Time to head back to the Courier offices and come up with a new plan to destroy the Sun (evil rubbing of hands)
The Eskimo (
talk)
21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
I guess this would be funny if it were not so close to the truth. Disliking the editorial content of The Sun is not sufficient reason to delete.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.78.226.208 (
talk •
contribs)
- Well, let me say this: I've never seen the Eastside Sun in real life; my work on the article was always to deal with vandalism and incorrect additions; I couldn't give a flying goddamn about it other than that. So do me a favour and make accusations someplace else, preferably with some semblance of proof before you do so.
Tony Fox
(arf!)
02:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep While I am certain Gavia immer and SarekOfVulcan will cross out this vote, I need to vote to keep regardless. Until Wikipedia establishes a clear 'cut-off-point' of what is a large enough newspaper for Wikipedia to include, then all newspapers must be included. Or none. Beware the slippery slope. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.203.248.18 (
talk)
21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —
98.203.248.18 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- Sidenote Re: the Delete vote by Beyond My Ken. this editor has several AKA's... Ed Fitzgerald and H Debussy-Jones under which it seems he repeatedly punitively edited this article. Is there something personal going on between this newspaper and the editors listed repeatedly in the history of this article? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.203.248.18 (
talk)
21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Those names are called SOCKPUPPETS, it allows Beyond My Ken to try and influence discussions by making it appear other people share his viewpoint. Very old trick
- (Comment added after closing) Just noticed these comments. Please see
this for my backstory. My editing of the article was in no way "punitive", and in fact served to improve it considerably. My "delete" !vote was a recognition that, even though considerable time had past, the subject's notability had still not been established.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
19:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Keep We have plenty of articles about local newspapers. Why is this one being singled out?—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.78.226.208 (
talk •
contribs) User expressed a separate keep opinion above
- This question is exactly covered in
WP:OTHERSTUFF on the page
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In a nutshell each article should stand on its own merit. —
Brianhe (
talk)
00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for failure to make
WP:NOTABILITY. If the Federal civil rights suit
[12] turns out to be notable, it should be added to the Kirkland media section. —
Brianhe (
talk)
00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The publication seems to be purely local in scope, and I do not think that it meets Wikipedia's
notability criteria. There does not seem to be much independent writing about this publication except for the coverage of a lawsuit it is involved in, and that coverage is also purely local in scope and does not rise above the level of
ordinary daily local news. If no one else outside the Kirkland, Washington area has seen fit to write in any depth about the Eastside Sun, there is no reason for Wikipedia to be the first.
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs)
01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Wow. This AFD has certainly attracted a large number of anon IPs. And while not trying to
WP:OSE, I do have to grant there are a number of articles on Wikipedia about many small "local" newspapers which have not themselves received worldwide, nationwide, or even statewide notice in other publications. The IPs seem to be aruing that by those existing precedents we might've acknowledged that this one could belong here as well. But as seems this one might go, we will need to prepare ourselves for other similarly argued deletions for these other less-than-major publications. It might be a good idea to propose a modification to
WP:NNEWSPAPER to stress that in the lack of wider independent coverage of the specific publication, there must be some minimal requirement for circulation in order to be worthy of inclusion herein. We could then simply speedy per
WP:TOOSMALL these other articles about these other small papers and not even worry about the controversy of an AFD and a deluge of anon IPs.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Schmidt, glad you brought
WP:NNEWSPAPER to my attention. The primary criterion listed there is that "Periodicals should have at a minimum an ISSN..." However, Washington's Eastside Sun does not show up in this OCLC search (though the LA Eastside Sun does) and fails the notability criterion:
[13]. —
Brianhe (
talk)
06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Well, to be fair, it is as yet only a proposed guideline... but as it
IS under discussion, I think that for newspapers that are not themselves
covered by their competition, adding a caveat about a required minimum circulation, would be of great use in quickly ridding Wikipedia of a great number of useless articles on small and forgettable newspapers.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
07:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Delete As long as you delete Kirkland Reporter, Seattle Weekly, Stranger etc. All politics is local and so is news. Otherwise...
- Keep thanks for being fair. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.78.226.208 (
talk)
03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC) User expressed a separate keep opinion above
reply
- Well... this one sure has a colorful edit history... that's for sure. But my thought would be to Keep as this article seems properly sourced, and per existing precedent for smaller newspapers, it's reasonable to have an article on this one... even if it is in Kirkland, Washington and not one of the BIG old boys in New York or Chicago... and really, this is not exactly some church gazette. Is it worth the hassle to patrol this article? Or patrol any article? I would think yes, and if there are problems with anon IPs messing with the article, it would certainly be prudent to protect it... but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? As for a comment above about it not having "historical significance", as its "history" is rather recent, determining "historical" might best be left to next decade's editors.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
05:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
- Well, it makes sense that someone might interview a newpaper's publisher, and so in answering your posed question, the article does contain information about the paper that does not deal with the lawsuit. I would be fine if the two sentences dealing with the publisher's lawsuit were removed from the article, as
WP:GNG instructs that the topic being sourced (IE: the nespaper) does not have to be the main focus of a source, and there is information in the sources about his suit that can be used to expand and cite the article without ever mentioning that suit.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
- You asked if something covered the newspaper in any manner other than the lawsuit... a reasonable request... and I replied. And while you might term the lawsuit itself as "dodgy", the article is not (or should not) be about the lawsuit. So with that caveat in mind, we are allowed to seek information to source the article about a newspaper in what sources that may be available... and even though some of the references do deal with a lawsuit, we might per
policy (and all the anon IPs herein notwithstanding), find other pieces of information about the newspaper in such articles. Cheers,
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You have to forgive Tony when he uses words like 'dodgy', it seems he'd rather censor than admit there are views out there that conflict with his own. Sad that we'll lose articles that he doesn't like or agree with, but that's what makes Wikipedia interesting. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.78.226.208 (
talk)
19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I find it interesting that 4 of the most vitriolic opponents of this publication are responsible for 44 out of the last 100 edits on this article. Tony Fox, Brianhe, SajakOfVulcan and Susan118 (all voting 'Delete and SajakOfVulcan making the motion to Delete). I have to wonder what about this publication scares them so much. Somebody has orders to throw a monkey wrench in this publication's gears. Perhaps someone is friends with the subject of one of this newspaper's editorials? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
168.103.171.49 (
talk)
04:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —
168.103.171.49 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- Do you have anything to say about the merits of the article? —
Brianhe (
talk)
05:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Those four editors who you think are "scared" of the publication, and taking "orders" to get it deleted, are highly respected, and average over 15,000 edits between them (Susan pulls that number down a bit with a measly 2,000+. Of course, she hasn't been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, like Brianhe, for instance.) And at least two of them are sysops, so please don't accuse people of being involved some sort of conspiracy against the Sun. If you were to read between the lines of the criticism above, you could glean some good suggestions on how to possibly improve the article so it might meet the
notability guidelines.
The Eskimo (
talk)
19:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I voted 'delete' because this article appears, to me, to be about a subject that does not meet Wikipedia's
notability criteria. I've never heard of the Eastside Sun, I don't know anyone associated with it, and I've never been anywhere near Kirkland, Washington. There is no conspiracy, and the new users who are convinced that there is one are merely making themselves sound silly. If this is a noteworthy publication, rather than commenting on your conspiracy theories, just link to some of the national-level awards this periodical has won, or articles about its significance in trade journals, and it'll be kept. No amount of silly accusations will keep the article, but a few good sources certainly would. -
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs)
19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I have to agree that this vendetta appears odd. Why is there so much information in a newspaper serving a community of less than 70,000 people? I know there is nothing we Kirklanders can do to protect our paper from the four editors that appear so adamant to delete it, but I wonder WHY it is so important to them.
I read The Eastside Sun from cover to cover every issue because it is NOT like a small town paper, it picks fights with corrupt police and names worthless city employees and backs it up with evidence and research. Its more like The Shinbone Star than a fishwrapper. I especially take offense at Tony Fox who is working tirelessly to delete this publication because "Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims." Similar claims?? He attacks one newspaper because he's heard something about other lawsuits by other people and he has the mental capabilities to determine that they are exactly the same? Perhaps he could save us money by replacing The Supreme Court. Has he read the depositions and arguments from both sides? Does he know the three city employees? It would be amazing if he did because I live here and I don't. Anyway, I don't have an Wiki-account but my name is Marilynne Reade. BTW FischerQueen, you may feel enough superiority to we serfs to refer to us as Silly People as you did in history:
19:43, 24 November 2010 FisherQueen (talk | contribs) (28,223 bytes) (silly people) (undo)
but at least we have the courtesy to make reasoned arguments.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.164.8.22 (
talk)
21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —
71.164.8.22 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- After looking at the above comments, it's clear that FisherQueeen stated "No amount of silly accusations will keep the article"
[14] ... at no point did she call anyone "Silly people" as you claimed. Please avoid making false accusations, and please don't use personal insults and attacks as you did in your comments about Tony Fox. ---
Barek (
talk •
contribs) -
21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the defense, Barek, but I did, in fact, use the edit summary 'silly people.' I think that 'silly' is not a particularly harsh criticism, but I certainly apologize if I hurt this person's feelings. I will revise 'silly people' to 'people who are utterly ignorant of Wikipedia's rules,' which is factually true, if that makes her feel better. I note that the person who objects has, like the other people invited here by some email, not shown any sign that he has yet read the Wikipedia rule we are discussing, or that he is aware that we are discussing the question of whether or not this publication meets Wikipedia's
notability criteria. We've all seen this pattern before- an AfD is flooded with non-helpful comments from people who don't understand Wikipedia's rules and think that they are participating in a vote, the AfD discussion is a big confusing mess, and ultimately, the closing admin only looks at the comments which address Wikipedia's rules, ignoring all the rest of the comments. -
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs)
22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Very heartfelt apology Susan. Calling people ignorant is SO much better.
- What's more is that these people have been involved with conflict over this article over at least a YEAR (it appears from the IP addresses to be the ones who have been arguing on the talk page for at least that long), and have not bothered to read any of WP's rules in that time. Not that I claim to be an expert on them myself, and yes there are a LOT of them, especially for infrequent editors, but the
notability one is a biggie that is clearly being ignored.--
Susan118
talk
22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Working tirelessly, am I? Yes, I've got a vast vendetta against the Eastside Sun, you know, a newspaper that I've never even seen in the wild and which I could care less about. I and the other editors who are being
personally attacked by this growing horde of insulting IPs and single-purpose accounts have done nothing more than try to apply Wikipedia's rules and guidelines regarding notability, so kindly shelve your idiotic conspiracy theories, then make some arguments based in Wikipedia's rules as to why this article should exist.
Tony Fox
(arf!)
21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Hey, as long as we're talking conspiracy theories and/or vendettas, I think it's worth mentioning that while the rest of us are located around the world, the several "anonymous" IP users who are hurling accusations, are all located in Washington state--most right around the Kirkland area--which raises suspicions, at least in my book. (I may be slacking as far as edits, but I know how to figure that out ;) ) Just thought I would throw that out there. And for the record, I live thousands of miles away from Kirkland, and have never been there; haven't even been on the west coast since I was 12, but sure, I'm conspiring with all these other people to put this little paper out of business. (Incidentally, not having an article on Wikipedia should make no difference to the livelihood of the paper. Not every successful business has, or needs to have, a WP article. There's a lovely restaurant I go to that has excellent happy hour specials that I'd love to write an article for, but you know what---it's not notable, so I don't. And their business has not been destroyed due to a lack of a Wikipedia article--
Susan118
talk
22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Because this is OUR community's newspaper you are trying to pass judgment on. No one in Duluth cares about the 80,000 people in our city, but we care greatly.
-
- Barry, Susan118 had "suspicions" (at least in her book) about why people/IPs were chiming in from the area this publication serves. My answer was to assuage those concerns, NOT to address the topics you discuss.
- Keep fighting and I'll turn this car around and no one will see grandma! Hi everyone, I am John Michael Gilday and I publish The Eastside Sun newspaper. First off, what a merry group you all are! Insults, backstabbing, nastiness and open weeping. Reminds me of my first honeymoon.
We ARE a small newspaper by any standards - established July 2006.
We ARE controversial.
We ARE embroiled in not one but two lawsuits.
We ARE occasionally A--holes and we've made some enemies.
But in our defense we apply time-honored checks and balances to our editorials. We don't seek the ouster of a public official until their actions rise to the level of inexcusable. We don't seek the termination of a police officer until 3 separate sources swear to his corruption. We sought intermediate steps prior to pursuing the lawsuit. We met with the superior of the guilty parties only to have her lie to our faces. When no action was taken we took action.
Wikipedia is a first-time-ever experiment where anyone can edit anything. It is a resource that every newspaperman on the planet probably uses at one time or another, myself included. I've watched our page over the years and even contributed to it - something I learned later was a no-no. Just today I researched House M.D., A cooking show with Gen Anderson and The HMS Britannic, the sister ship of the Titanic (only to learn we were misspelling it as Britanic). Needless to say, Wikipedia is an invaluable resource.
But this bickering has to stop. Yes, I too find it interesting that a few editors find us so terribly interesting and in need of deletion, but - like being in a crowded bar at closing time - you can make book on the fact we will always attract that one 'special' person who will go on to make our life a living hell...
I've reviewed the edits of all the 'Delete' editors mentioned and we are not the only article they've ever worked on, edited, nominated for deletion or heavily censored. There is no reason to believe there is any vendetta going on, just watching, watching, watching. Day and night, 24/7... watching us. Wow, suddenly I got this chill. Anybody got a Xanax?
In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it. Feel free to contact me to verify this message's authenticity. Our phone number and email can be found on page two of this month's issue available online (www.eastsidesun.com) and at newsstands in Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Issaquah (look it up, it's a real city) and Renton.
But knock off the bickering or, I swear to god, I'm coming back there with a switch... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
206.188.60.1 (
talk)
23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You must be new here. Wikipedia runs on bickering.
PhGustaf (
talk)
23:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- As the publisher, you are in a very good position to comment on the only subject that is relevant to this discussion: whether or not the Eastside Sun meets Wikipedia's
notability criteria, and whether the Eastside Sun has been written about in any depth by other publications. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? -
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs)
23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Hi FischerQueen. Dang, you are quick, I just finished writing that entry! In this era where every publication is scratching for the same shrinking pool of advertisers, there is no reason why ANY of our competitors should promote The Eastside Sun. We don't mention them and there is no reason for them to mention us. Remember 'All ink is good ink' which is another way of saying if they write about you they give you legitimacy.
- Sure, I've had a few interviews over the years re: exploits in SE Asia, Gulf Coast, mideast etc., but The Eastside Sun per se gets very little promotion from our competitors - and that is as it should be. Hope that answers your question. (signed) John —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
206.188.60.1 (
talk)
23:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- To the publisher: I should note that it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are covered by a direct competitor. There are other journalism outlets, for example trade journals within the publishing industry, or perhaps your paper has been covered by journalism in other media (TV stations, radio stations, websites) which have provided useful information. Just to expand a bit on the reasoning behind this: Wikipedia strives to have articles which are
neutrally written and
verifiable and factually accurate. In order to assure that our articles meet all of those standards, the articles need to have information which is
referenced to reliable, independent
sources. If sources simply do not exist, then Wikipedia has established that it is better to simply not have an article about a subject than it would be to have one which was unbalanced, dubious, or false. Without independent sourcing, and reliable sourcing, it would be impossible to assure that our articles were trustworthy. It's that simple. The concept of
notability, as defined at Wikipedia, exists simply to assure that the sources exist with which we can research and write quality articles. No sources = no article. I hope, as the publisher of a work which hopefully itself values verifiability, balance, and truthfulness, you understand why Wikipedia has these standards. --
Jayron
32
00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You are correct, in that you do not seem to understand. WOW, passive/aggressive much? Wikipedia is not a forum for snotty comments, petty insults and to try and talk down to people. I don't know nor do I care why you have this need to act in this way Eskimo, but there are other forums for that attitude. The fellow came into this discussion in a humorous vein to try and enlighten us about the publication for which he works - the least we can do is treat him with respect. He even refrained from voting, instead closing with "In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it." Pretty classy, you might take notes.
184.78.226.208 (
talk)
08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This is not a vote. It is a discussion of whether or not the Eastside Sun meets Wikipedia's
notability criteria, which are listed below. Every single comment on this page which is not about that subect (including this one) will be ignored by the administrator who reads the discussion and decides whether to keep or delete the article-that admin will only give weight to the comments which discuss the evidence that the Eastside Sun is a notable organization. He did not 'refrain from voting.' He made an effort to discuss the question of whether independent sources on this subject exist: he says that they do not, which means that, in the consideration of this discussion, he will be taken as 'voting' to delete the article. -
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs)
12:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You open your comment with "This is not a vote." and close it with the spectacular assumption that "he will be taken as 'voting' to delete the article"! Your IQ results are in so I guess the only question that remains is 'Have you no shame?'
- Putting 'voting' in quotation marks is a way of signifying 'it is not really a vote, but the word is a grammatically simple way of expressing this idea.' I'm sorry that you don't understand what a deletion discussion is, and aren't willing to read the rules for yourself, and don't believe me when I try to explain it... I don't think there is anything more I can do to help you. -
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs)
11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
To regular contributors, I am VERY sorry for doing this and will face the music for being disruptive if necessary, but it seems that some on this thread will not take the time to click on a simple link offered over and over again. PLEASE NOTE: At the very core of the issue, THIS is what we are talking about...base your arguments for keep on the following:
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so
no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
[1]
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
verifiable evaluation of notability, per
the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass
published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Sources,"
[2] for notability purposes, should be
secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.
[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising,
self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
[4]
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage
in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate
what Wikipedia is not.
[5]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. with apologies
The Eskimo (
talk)
03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
PhilKnight (
talk)
02:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
List of Avatars(God) born as Rajput (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD) •
Afd statistics
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Rajput word is used no where in sanskrit literature.They are later addition to indian society.Some of them descendant from Huna, Gurjara hordes whereas some from aboriginals.Rajput and many other castes clains descendant from God rama that doesn't means God Rama was rajput or else.
For more info visit (famous historian V. A. smith) :
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8XXGhAL1WKcC&pg=PA413&dq
R
Mkrestin (
talk)
10:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, poorly copyedited, unreferenced, and of dubious value. Plus it would appear the claims are highly contested, and the only "sources" are other WP articles, which, incidentally, don't appear to support the assertion of Rajput ties in many cases.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
14:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions. --
Jclemens-public (
talk)
15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --
Jclemens-public (
talk)
15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete:
WP:OR, unreferenced and notability issues.--
Redtigerxyz
Talk
15:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --
• Gene93k (
talk)
02:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Delete: --
. Shlok
talk .
06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as pseudohistory/
original research.
utcursch |
talk
08:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:OR.
Rabbabodrool (
talk)
20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
If someone has an objection to word
Rajput : the Title name can be changed to List of Avatars(God) born in Kshatriya or
List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families. As far a I understand the list is comprehensive and should not be deleted. As far as I understand the reason for asking deletion, is objection to word Rajput and not the content of the article by original proposer. Although, in India all Rajput claim their descant from Kshatriya.
R P Jethwa (
talk)
15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- It's not so much any of the above, so much as it's totally unreferenced. You can't use Wikipedia articles as references (which the current article, bafflingly, does). Setting aside a few other issues of notability, in order to have such a list you'd need clear footnotes for each name, going to a reputed academic source (not a blog, fansite, forum) clearly indicating that said avatar was born as a Rajput. Your question somewhat confuses me though; how could changing the title to "Kshatriya" help things? There are plenty of Kshatriya who are not Rajput, yes? Then how would the list still be valid, unless it's already including non-Kshatriya?
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Hi!! Matthew, what I was trying to clarify was that
Mkrestin has put deletion notice citing objection to use of word Rajput. He has been editing all articles, removing the word Rajput wherever it is used by anyone and deleting or editing without any logic. See :
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raghav Rajkul.png,
Bachal Deletion request, removed the image of Lord Rama from articles like
Bachal,
Jayas. Are there any
administrator sitting up there taking notice of this vandalism going on in wikipedia. Further, all I was trying to say was that whoever created the page may not have the idea, about wikipedia guidelines. But since list is exhaustive and can be useful for someone researching on India & Hinduism related topic, to save it, maybe, it can also be made or shifted to a [[Category :
List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families]] of Category : List of Indian Gods born in Raoyal families, if not as a page so that article remains as a category. However, it is up to community to decide the fate of article. I just wanted to give my opinion. Ever since I have became a wikipedian, I have come to understand that, there are many persons, who want to prove their point of view and Wikipedia is becoming like internet game, where anyone can come play, prove their point, fight and go away. Sometimes, there are gang of persons involved, one proposes deletion, another seconds it. Sometimes, same person uses several accounts to make it's voice heard. As far as Rajput & Kshatriya theory is concerned : I believe all Rajput are Kshatriya, if not vice-versa. And if someone, wants to say Rajput are not Kshatriyas, then he must give genuine links to such an original idea. Maybe he could re-write history of Indian sub-continent.
R P Jethwa (
talk)
18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Again, this has nothing to do with whether Rajputs are Kshatriya. Nor does it have anything to do with how wide or narrow the title of the list is. The primary issue is that we have a huge list of names with no proof/evidence whatsoever that these avatars were (in a given belief system) born into Rajput/Kshatriya/royal families. What the list would need is a footnote on each name to, say, an academic work in GoogleBooks which has a sentence which explicitly says "Avatar so-and-so was believed to be an incarnation of God XYZ, and was born the the Foosale Rajput royal family of Fooistan". Otherwise we'll get people wading in adding random names, deleting names because "HE WASN'T BORN IN A RAJPUT FAMILY!!!", and nobody will be able to counterargue since there's no evidence given.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Update: in an attempt to at least improve the title, I've moved it to List of Hindu avatars born as Rajputs, which is at least clearer. Please correct if "Hindu" is too specific. But the primary problem with the article still stands. I've deleted the list of "sources" as other WP articles do not qualify as sources; sources must be external reputable works.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- As i already said, many communities claim descent from God Rama, doesn't mean God Rama was from those communities.Due to the same reason i removed image of God Rama from those pages.About
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raghav Rajkul.png, i wrote that nowhere word Rajput is used for God Rama, which is right.That's why that file has no meaning.
Bachal article was a lot copy paste from Sisodia article that's why i put that notice.I request to the fellow editors to check the list mentioned at the end of this article as they seems to have no link with Bachal clan except last inline links.
Mkrestin (
talk)
19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Update:The file Raghav_Rajkul.png is of importance because it shows how the present day Rajput communities have derived their name like Kushwah Rajput getting their name from Kush son of Rama, and other rajput dyansty being attached to family of Lav. The word Rajput in the above
[15] is neither used for Lord Rama or King Love or King Kush. The file gives an easy idea to anyone that why so many Rajput or Kshatriya claim descant Rama or to be Raghuvanshi or Suryavanshi. Similar, case can be found in Yaduvanshi lineage, where many Rajput claim to be descandant of Krishna of Chandravanshi/Yadu dynasty.
R P Jethwa (
talk)
03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Update: I dug up some references for the
Rajput article, and per a scholarly ref there's not mention of Rajputs as a social entity until the 6th century AD. So categorising anyone pre-600 as "Rajput" appears to be historical revisionism, which seems a good reason to delete the article.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Hi!!. Going one step further I have renamed the page
List of Hindu avatars born as Kshatriyas, as Rajput would be inappropriate looking at historical background. As far as your question Hindu is too specific, looking at the list it contains lot of name of
Jain religion. Let the community take debate further.
R P Jethwa (
talk)
02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Further, in many of the edits user Mkrestin has given edit summary as use of word Rajput & Kshatriya together is not proper. They are different.... And removed word Rajput. IF that is so he should be bold enough to remove the first line The Rajput are one of the major social groups of India, historically associated with the Kshatriya martial caste in Hindu society. from
Rajput page. and let us see the floodgates open.
R P Jethwa (
talk)
02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Again you misinterpreting my edits.Rajput may be part of Kshatriya varna but using Rajput or Kshatriya as synonym is not appropriate.As user:MatthewVanitas has provided reference that rajput word is of around 6th AD but Kshatriya word is very old.About this article, i don't think such type of lists make any sense.After sometime it will be filled with lot of unreferenced content like other such type of articles.Thank you
Mkrestin (
talk)
07:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
I do not have any personal bias against you or any one. If you thought article was bad in taste than
Deletion policy cites alternative to deletion by editing, or giving proper reason for deletion and not reasons like Rama was not a Rajput. Becasue, the page contains rathar more names of
Jain
Tirthankar rathar than
Hindu Gods. I have my-self removed the image of Lord Rama from this page as I thought it to be of no use here. All I was trying to say was that deletion is easy but if page can be improved and saved it is rather good. Same is the case with
File:Raghav_Rajkul.png, which has no criteria for deletion. If u r saying Ram was not Rajput, that is okay but what about many clans claiming descant from Raghukul.
R P Jethwa (
talk)
09:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The nominator has given a thoughtful rationale for deletion. The rationale has received significant support, and defence, from other editors. There are of course a number of keep arguments made. But the bases for a number of them have been refuted: a couple of delete !voters have gone to significant and successful lengths to do so on a policy basis. For example "no policy/guideline basis for setting the GNG aside" is a rationale refuted as having been made without reference to
WP:NOTNEWS. Not all the keeps are weak - a number of them directly deal with NOTNEWS - but a number of them have been given less weight due to the refuted "news coverage=inclusion" view.
The numbers here seem to be 7-5 to delete (with one keep being explicitly "weak"), but it is the balancing of the arguments that has tipped it firmly into "consensus to delete" territory.--
Mkativerata (
talk)
01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD) •
Afd statistics
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is a difficult decision, but I think the right one. There will be some who feel that the news item went viral and is notable, and that deletion must be due to censorship or prudery. It isn't. It's because this really is, in this day and age, "just routine news". Emails are routinely forwarded whose creators didn't want them to be, they routinely get mass circulated, a huge number of things "go viral", and many people put details of sexual performance of past partners online or send them to close friends - for fun, to embarrass exes, or for other reasons.
By way of comparison, many news items of significance (murders, speeches, suicides, tragedies and "funny page" news) have long been considered "routine" even though they routinely gain widespread coverage in reliable sources. We don't document everything. This seems to be of the same kind - if we can agree that most suicides, murders or other horrific incidents are "just routine" and
salaciousness isn't a factor, then "embarrassing emails sent out by friends that get commented on for being widely circulated
lulz" probably are of the same kind too. Perhaps only the most notable or those with some specific reason, should be given their own articles.
In brief, I'm not sure at all that this meets the spirit of
WP:NOT. The question is whether "person writes embarrassing email (content irrelevant) that a friend forwards and goes viral" is sufficient for
WP:NOT#NEWS.
In this case there are a lot of cites, it has gained mentions in reliable sources and the letter of
WP:GNG. But where as a community do we set the hurdle of
WP:NOT#NEWS to ensure
not every last widely circulated internet mistake becomes a Wikipedia article? Internet circulated emails, memes and other viral matters - even those commented in reliable sources - are as routine as political speeches, suicides, murders, and funny page or human interest news snippets. This one seems to be "just another person who sent an email about their sex partners that got forwarded by a friend to the world". They're all but routine. Hence after some deep thought, nominated at AFD.
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I have to agree. Delete.
DS (
talk)
20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'm going to
disregard policies and guidelines for a second and go all the way back to
the five pillars. The very first one is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia." When it comes down to it, deletion policies and guidelines are aimed to guide us towards figuring out what actually belongs in an enyclopedia. This simply isn't encyclopedic content – it's news. Regardless of how viral it is, when it comes down to it, in a few years nobody is going to look up something like this in an encyclopedia. If it really is something that needs to be looked up, probably the first place to look would be news archives. Wikipedia is not a news archive, it is an encyclopedia. --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:Ignore all the rules should be about improving Wikipedia, not about deleting article. When it comes to deleting articles, the debate should be about policies. Articles should be deleted only if they fail to live up to a Wikipedia policy.
Victor Victoria (
talk)
05:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You seem to believe that deleting articles is not improving Wikipedia. As an obvious counter-example, consider the hundreds of vandalism pages that get deleted every day. Surely deleting these is improving Wikipedia. I argue that this is also such a case (not vandalism, but a case where deletion improves Wikipedia by keeping it in-line with the five pillars). --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
06:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry, but disagree. "Value" is not the same as "data". Removing never adds data, but often adds value. Canonical example, a 200 page report nobody will read contains more "data" but less "value" than a summary that will be readily readable and noticed, and hence more widely useful. A project policy contains less data but is of more value than a dump of the 20 MB of threads and discussions that may have produced it. Why do people use Wikipedia itself when all our articles are based on information available elsewhere or google-able? Because it's more value, even if less raw data. Removal of unsuitable pages can be every bit as important as addition of suitable pages on the project's value to a reader. Consensus and the community decide which is which - which is in effect what this page is doing now.
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
07:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree too. Victor, what about hoaxes - deliberate misinformation? For nine months last year Wikipedia had articles about a political party which was said to have made a revolution in Brunei and overthrown the Sultan, and about the man who was said to be President in his place. Those were totally false; don't you think deleting them improved the encyclopedia?
JohnCD (
talk)
12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Of course hoaxes have to be deleted, but this article is not a hoax. Let's end this debate, as it is a philosophical sidebar on whether
WP:IAR applies in deletion debates. I think we will all agree that
WP:IAR is a much weaker argument than one referencing actual Wikipedia policies
Victor Victoria (
talk)
13:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry but I can't agree with you (so please don't say "we will all agree"). In fact, you totally missed my point. My point isn't about
WP:IAR, it's about
WP:5P. Every policy and guideline is somehow based on the five pillars. By going back to the five pillars, I'm saying that I don't care what the policies and guidelines say, it is quite clear what needs to be done here to keep Wikipedia on track. --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- We are not relying only on IAR, but on NOTNEWS (which applies to the fuss, as well as to the document) and BLP. I agree that my comment three above is straying from the point; but I thought your assertion that "Deleting is definitely NOT improving" needed to be challenged by a counter-example.
JohnCD (
talk)
17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --
Jclemens-public (
talk)
20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with Shirik. It is not part of Wikipedia's role to help these passing scandals "go viral." Nominator mentions the GNG, but that explicitly says that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion... For example, such an article may violate
what Wikipedia is not", and that is the case here. There are also BLP considerations.
JohnCD (
talk)
21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated. I am the principal editor on this article, and I can assure you that I would never have created this article if it was just about the faux thesis. I agree that the faux thesis itself would fall under the
WP:NOTNEWS policy, but the controversy surrounding it (i.e. the questions of double standard, privacy, and other considerations) is notable enough and unusual enough to surpass the threshold of
WP:NOTNEWS.
Victor Victoria (
talk)
05:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
It's a consideration (and the good faith is not in question). But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass
WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (
WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?
It just doesn't seem so, or at least there's not currently evidence of the possibility (
WP:CRYSTAL). Some events do have significant impact on a controversy and
are seen or will be seen as significant points of enduring notice in the debate. But right now we don't have good evidence this is (or is seen as, or will be) anything more than "another privacy breach controversy of similar kind as many many others have been or will be".
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
06:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia does not operate on a standard of "enduring notability". It operates on a standard of
notability is not temporary. This was a notable controversy as evidenced by the fact that it was covered by many sources independent of the subjects. Hence, it's notable. I have already covered in my original argument why
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article.
Victor Victoria (
talk)
13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Actually it does - precisely that.
WP:NOT has included this wording for a long time: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Before then it stated that Wikipedia considers "enduring historicity". NTEMP is guideline wording. NOT is policy. It's useful to go back to policy and basic principles on difficult cases like this.
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
03:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Precisely because we operate on a principle of "notability is not temporary" we have policies such as
WP:NOTNEWS and guidelines like the last clause of the
WP:GNG to help us avoid assigning notability to things which may be in
in all the papers but are of no enduring significance. There are lots of murders, which each get coverage in reliable sources, but we don't want articles about every one; we ask, is there anything significant about this one, such as a change in the law resulting? Is there any reason why it will be remembered in a year?
- In just the same way, occurrences of "indiscretion is leaked to the internet, goes viral, brouhaha about privacy ensues" are frequent enough that, even though the brouhaha may be in all the papers, we don't want or need articles about each new example. This particular one has unusually salacious subject matter, but why is it significant enough to need recording in an encyclopedia?
JohnCD (
talk)
18:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I simply remain unconvinced about your notability argument. Can you honestly say that this would be looked up in an encyclopedia in 5 or 10 years (let alone 100)? I'd be surprised if I still remember this in a few weeks, myself, but I admit I really don't care much for history. Fact of the matter is that, at least for me, this is something I would go to
news.google.com for instead of an encyclopedia. That is what
WP:NOTNEWS is all about. How was this a historical event in any sense of the term? --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: we have also to consider BLP aspects. See
WP:BLP#Avoid victimization on "dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." It could be argued that by her foolishness in giving the document to three friends the author has forfeited her claim to consideration; I am not persuaded even of that, but certainly her subjects come under that policy clause. The original article linked a "redacted" version of the document with blacked out names and blurred faces, but it would not be hard to identify them, and inevitably an IP soon linked an unredacted version which named names and included clear pictures. I have removed that link, but no doubt it will be added again if the article is kept.
JohnCD (
talk)
12:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- On reflection I think that, foolish though she was, the author of the document is also a victim (of her "friend" who leaked it, and of the general heartlessness of the Internet) and that we have a duty of care to her under the policy clause I quote just above. Yes, it is already public in the internet, but putting it in Wikipedia gives it more status, more accessibility and more permanence.
JohnCD (
talk)
17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: this is, at bottom, a news incident that will be forgotten in a couple of months. If it ends up having far-reaching significance, the article can always be re-created.
Roscelese (
talk)
03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Major news story, coverage worldwide. . The bias should be that if there are major sources, it should be presumed to be notable. (I seem to remember some rule about that somewhere :) )
DGG (
talk )
05:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Cirt (
talk)
03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep This one garnered a ton of news coverage, and is likely to show up in academic literature on viral events, with some sort of very low half-life, from here until PowerPoint is long forgotten in its dusty grave. I wish this stuff would disappear too, but I'm afraid that's the nature of the world we live in.
Ray
Talk
03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. --
Jclemens-public (
talk)
06:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, which should have articles about subjects of timeless notability, rather than a mirror of each transient news topic about some publicity stunt or attention seeking individual's actions.
Edison (
talk)
14:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Pure "not news", a singular story with no lasting impact or significance. None of the 'keep its notable' actually address the nomination, per usual.
Tarc (
talk)
15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. When an incident goes viral and gets global news coverage I think this in itself is sufficient to establish notability per our guidelines. This then goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS as I interpret these guidelines. Had the item been regular news, how would it have gathered its viral momentum? It wouldn't. There's something exceptional about it, thus the virality. Add to that significant mainstream media coverage and this item should fly above the notability threshhold with a wide margin. __
meco (
talk)
16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per DGG; no policy/guideline basis for setting the GNG aside.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment on the last two entries: I absolutely disagree that "gone viral" implies "notable" - things can go viral that are utterly trivial, but, per
WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Nobody could claim that there is any "enduring notability" about this. And WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS, is an excellent policy basis for setting the General Notability Guideline aside, even if the fifth bullet point of the
WP:GNG did not already explicitly say that significant coverage does not guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion.
JohnCD (
talk)
22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. Both as a guideline v. policy and also by its own stated wording,
WP:GNG makes clear it is subordinate to and overridden by
WP:NOT.
WP:GNG itself also cites
WP:NOT as overriding any presumption.
- If the topic were considered to be routine as an event (NOT#NEWS) and of unproven significance as a controversy (NOT#CRYSTAL), then that's the bottom line.
- Being widely reported doesn't change that the event is within "routine news" these days, the controversy such as it's been has been of no enduring significance at this point (
CRYSTAL, zero actual evidence), and by agreed policy Wikipedia doesn't exist to cover routine news even if it was widely reported for a brief period.
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Since mine was one of the last two entries you comment on I must point out that you are rebutting a
straw man. My equating was between notability and the combination of virality and global news coverage. __
meco (
talk)
11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I will be more precise. I disagree that "gone viral plus global news coverage" necessarily implies the "enduring notability" which is what concerns Wikipedia. In today's global village, things can go viral and get global coverage which are utterly trivial and will be forgotten within weeks.
JohnCD (
talk)
15:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Not least, "gone viral" is incredibly meaningless, non-specific and not a criterion of any kind for keeping. The expression means "circulated very quickly and widely", it's not some additional notability criterion. But many things are spread very quickly and widely without being notable- a specific chain or hoax email, a specific
Darwin Award winner's story, a video of some celebrity supposedly having sex, or a specific
Lolcat image are 3 quick examples. Some get coverage too and are still ephemeral all the same.
- We usually exclude "measures of supposed popularity" from AFD and consider evidence of meeting both
WP:NOT and
WP:GNG instead - see the "notability fallacies" at
arguments to avoid. The concern at this AFD is that while GNG is met, NOT is not.
WP:NOT is not optional or subordinate to GNG, in fact NOT trumps GNG (both by GNG's own wording and as a policy to a guideline).
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I've already cast my
!VOTE above, so I won't do it again. I just wanted to acknowledge (as the principal editor of the article) that all those making the
WP:NOTNEWS argument have a legitimate point in that the majority of the references are from just two days: October 7 and October 8. I have therefore
just added a reference from October 29 saying that there was a forum held at the university about the controversy. According to the reference, this is the first of several forums about the topic.
On a related matter, one option in such tough cases is to make a redirect, so that if/when additional information surfaces up, it would be easy to resurrect the article. Unfortunately, I don't think this option exists, as I cannot think of anything that this article would redirect to. The likelihood that more will develop is strong, as
has been speculated in the Washington Post she could make a lot of money if she wrote a book about it. I am well aware of the
WP:CHRYSTAL policy, and I'm not advocating that the article be kept just because there exists a potential for the story to develop (I've already gave my KEEP !VOTE). All I'm saying that given all the people involved in the controversy: the author, the three friends who received the faux thesis, and the 13 sexual partners, it is very likely that one of them will come out into the limelight some time in the future, bringing the controversy back into the headlines and then
WP:NOTNEWS will definitely not apply.
Victor Victoria (
talk)
18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- As a comment also, when I close AFD's where this has happened, one option is to close it as delete - but explicitly note the basis of the deletion. A usual wording is something like "delete, without prejudice to recreation if enduring notice is later established" (or "...if NOTNEWS is later met").
- The aim being that it's explicit and unambiguous that it's for want of that one point and if it were to change then recreation could become valid. Would something like that work?
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
18:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Updating: the forum was internal. So it shows the place it happened took action, which is expected, but it doesn't add to any attention by the wider world.
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- How about "without objections to undeletion", rather "recreation".
Victor Victoria (
talk)
19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- It's a standard wording, people'll know what it means. You'll find numerous AFDs closed that way ("without prejudice to relisting/recreation"). "Recreation" would include both re-posting or rewriting, as well as requests to undelete due to achieving notability later. The standard venue for that is
deletion review ("DRV") where it's common to post "This has now become notable due to the following evidence, can undeletion be agreed".
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
19:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I have reverted a non-admin closure by
96.32.181.73 (
talk ·
contribs). Per
WP:NAC#Appropriate closures, non-admin closures should be restricted to "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period... absent any contentious debate among participants" or Speedy keep situations. Neither of those applies here.
JohnCD (
talk)
11:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:SNOW applies because it is quite clear that there is no consensus, even after relisting. The principle of WP:SNOW is that if the outcome of a process is already known it is not necessary to run the entire process. As for how that applies here, it means "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period..." need not run the full listing period because it is already known that there is no consensus. And thus, IMO, my early closure is within the guidelines/policy for non-admin closures. But whatever. --
96.32.181.73 (
talk)
17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You did not complete the quote from WP:NAC: "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period... absent any contentious debate among participants." There are at this point, including the nominator, seven voices for delete, four keep and one weak keep. It is for the closing admin to assess the arguments presented, but a delete decision
does not require unanimity; there is no way that this situation is a SNOW keep.
JohnCD (
talk)
19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-
^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of
Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06).
"Tough love child of Kennedy".
The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
-
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English.
-
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
-
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
-
^ Moreover, not all coverage in
reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as
reliable sources.