Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 18: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:56, 23 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits []: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit Revision as of 15:59, 23 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits []: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit →
Line 17: Line 17:




====]====
]
I noticed the article was determined to be deleted. The debate page had just come up with a few better examples as to the articles qualifications on Misplaced Pages, but there was no comment on these points as the article was shut down. I would like to hear what the administrator based their closing on, and '''relist'''. Any information would be appreciated! --] 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*I was the closing administrator. The arguments for deletion were based around the fact that there was an absence of material meeting ], ], and ]. The arguments for keep mainly consisting of vague assertions of notability being based on appearances in several other not particularly notable internet animations/media. Being listed on Albinoblacksheep is fairly trivial and hardly a measure of notability. ] 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


*'''Endorse closure''' - AFD was conducted correctly, and a review of the comments made indicates that there was no non-trivial references to the topic to be had. A flash cartoon referring to a flash cartoon is not a reliable source. An established magazine or newspaper referring to a flash cartoon is - but there was no indication of such existing. ] <small>]</small> 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure''' To fully see the references added to the AFD, go into edit mode on the AFD page, add the <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tag, and preview. What we get is 1) urban dictionary, 2) you-tube and 3) video.google.com. These are not ] as they are sites that anyone can edit, which is the reason that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source by our standards. ] 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case the claim that a flash movie is of encyclopaedic notability requires evidence in the form of it having been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. As noted above, no such evidence has been provided. <b>]</b> 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse colsure''': Although ] was active in the first AfD there is no sign that he applied any bias in the closure of the second. Those voting '''keep''' never addressed the issues in ]. If there was a case to be made based on unique hits per ] or traffic per alexa rank, it was not made in the debate. -] 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:*I didn't realize I was active in the original AFD discussion... 0_o. Just to make it clear, my closure on this AFD was independent of my comment in the first AFD, which occurred about 1/2 year ago. ] 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:**In response to never addressing ], I did, but ] was determined to not be an online publisher. --] 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:***Hmm, didn't see that at first, but I'm not surprised given that they are just distributing posts from various members. Even if they are "publishers", is there some reason that this cartoon really stands out from other content posted there? -] 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - per procedure. Tony Fox is right, no evidence was given -- ] 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' as valid AfD. The only thing even remotely close to a process breach is the fact mentioned above that closer Wicket voted in the first AfD... but not only isn't that a big deal, I also can't imagine that anyone else would possibly have closed it differently. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Valid AfD, keep voters could not show how series met ] despite repeated requests to do so. ] <font size="1"> <nowiki>] | ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></font> 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 15:59, 23 October 2006

< October 17 October 19 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

18 October 2006

Sixth Party System

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sixth Party System

This article has had a somewhat tortured history. It was prodded, deleted, and the deletion was brought here. It received six Endorse deletion !votes before it was sent to AfD as a contested prod. Because of this, the AfD had no deletion argument at all for a while. The deletion argument is straightforward:

This is an obscure addendum to V. O. Key's Fifth Party System. It reflects the views of a single paper that the Sixth Party System began in 1964, and ended in 1994. This itself is one of 23 papers variously dating the beginning of the Sixth Party System between 1960 and the present. Some of them mention the Sixth Party System only to deny it has begun. These in turn are a small fraction of the hundreds of papers on critical elections in the United States.

I do not believe that any of the keep !votes (except KChase, who has a copy; I look forward to his expanded version) even addresses this argument, save by ungrounded assertions that there must be more scholarly papers out there somewhere. If so, scholar.google.com and JSTOR have not found them.

If we take out the dates, we are left with the dicdef: "After the Fifth Party System comes the Sixth Party System." (This is itself not uncontroversial: some scholars think the Fifth Party System has been replaced by a system of dealignment.)

Insofar as what I have said here has encyclopedic content, it is in Fifth Party System. So I propose to overturn and delete. Septentrionalis 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)