| Revision as of 17:32, 16 April 2013 editPrioryman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers27,962 edits Creating deletion discussion page for List of Misplaced Pages controversies. using TW | Revision as of 17:38, 16 April 2013 edit undoVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,084 edits →List of Misplaced Pages controversiesNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :({{Find sources|List of Misplaced Pages controversies}}) | :({{Find sources|List of Misplaced Pages controversies}}) | ||
| This list is the product of an off-wiki collaboration involving banned users and trolls from Wikipediocracy. It was created by one Wikipediocracy user, ]. Its development is being promoted with cash rewards (paid editing!) by something called "The Wikipediocracy Fund", doing business as ] (see ). It is being promoted off-wiki by a long-term banned user, ]. It suffers from two unsalvageable problems which require its deletion. '''First,''' it is inherently ], as the choice of what "controversies" to include is completely arbitrary. It seems to be intended as a "greatest hits" list for Wikipediocracy and its predecessor, Misplaced Pages Review, which Jayen466 has used as a referenced source despite its complete unreliability. '''Second''' and relatedly, it falls foul of ]. A list topic "is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is clearly not the case here, as the list is an entirely arbitrary choice selected by off-wiki agitators. The fundamental premise of this list is flawed; because of that it is unsalvageable and for that reason it should be deleted. ] (]) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | This list is the product of an off-wiki collaboration involving banned users and trolls from Wikipediocracy. It was created by one Wikipediocracy user, ]. Its development is being promoted with cash rewards (paid editing!) by something called "The Wikipediocracy Fund", doing business as ] (see ). It is being promoted off-wiki by a long-term banned user, ]. It suffers from two unsalvageable problems which require its deletion. '''First,''' it is inherently ], as the choice of what "controversies" to include is completely arbitrary. It seems to be intended as a "greatest hits" list for Wikipediocracy and its predecessor, Misplaced Pages Review, which Jayen466 has used as a referenced source despite its complete unreliability. '''Second''' and relatedly, it falls foul of ]. A list topic "is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is clearly not the case here, as the list is an entirely arbitrary choice selected by off-wiki agitators. The fundamental premise of this list is flawed; because of that it is unsalvageable and for that reason it should be deleted. ] (]) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Uh...'''Keep'''. In the rant above Prioryman focuses on issues which are completely irrelevant to deletion requirements. There are plenty of lists and articles with the word "controversy" in the title. The list satisfies notability requirement as much if not more than these kinds of lists on Misplaced Pages. It's not only NOT "uinsalvageable" it's actually pretty good to begin with (doesn't even NEED salvaging). Basically a bad faithed nom in pursuit of a grudge.<span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:38, 16 April 2013
List of Misplaced Pages controversies
- List of Misplaced Pages controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is the product of an off-wiki collaboration involving banned users and trolls from Wikipediocracy. It was created by one Wikipediocracy user, Jayen466. Its development is being promoted with cash rewards (paid editing!) by something called "The Wikipediocracy Fund", doing business as SB Johnny (see ). It is being promoted off-wiki by a long-term banned user, Thekohser. It suffers from two unsalvageable problems which require its deletion. First, it is inherently non-neutral, as the choice of what "controversies" to include is completely arbitrary. It seems to be intended as a "greatest hits" list for Wikipediocracy and its predecessor, Misplaced Pages Review, which Jayen466 has used as a referenced source despite its complete unreliability. Second and relatedly, it falls foul of notability requirements. A list topic "is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is clearly not the case here, as the list is an entirely arbitrary choice selected by off-wiki agitators. The fundamental premise of this list is flawed; because of that it is unsalvageable and for that reason it should be deleted. Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Uh...Keep. In the rant above Prioryman focuses on issues which are completely irrelevant to deletion requirements. There are plenty of lists and articles with the word "controversy" in the title. The list satisfies notability requirement as much if not more than these kinds of lists on Misplaced Pages. It's not only NOT "uinsalvageable" it's actually pretty good to begin with (doesn't even NEED salvaging). Basically a bad faithed nom in pursuit of a grudge.Volunteer Marek 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)