Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:28, 24 May 2013

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 keep, per what I've written at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

• Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy
• Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (3rd nomination)

Wikipediocracy (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)

I completely realize that this article was recently taken to AfD. Heck, I realize that I voted Keep in that AfD. However, after comments by others about the sources, i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously. And what I have found does seem to indicate a violation of WP:SIGCOV here, where the source coverage is extremely trivial. While this was occasionally mentioned in the previous AfD, it does not appear to have been properly represented and that is why I am opening this new discussion. I will now go through the sources in the article to show what I mean.

This source is used to reference the Bicholim conflict hoax material, of which on Wikipediocracy it states, "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."" That is the entirety of the mention of Wikipediocracy within the article, clearly trivial.

This is a recent source about the Qworty incident. on Wikipediocracy, it states, "The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention, he writes, when members of Wikipediocracy, a site that details instances of Wikipedian fakery and bias, contacted him." Also a trivial mention, not even counting that it is referencing information from a different news article.

This article could actually be an issue of original research being used in the Wikipediocracy article. At the bottom of it, it states "H/T Wikipediocracy", with that being a link to a tweet by the Wikipediocracy Twitter that itself just links to two diff changes in a Misplaced Pages article. H/T generally means "Heard through" on Twitter, but that is certainly not enough information to back up the sentence currently in the Wikipediocracy article that it is attached to. This isn't even a real mention of the site at all.

This article is about somewhat recent discussions with Jimbo about Kazakh Misplaced Pages. Its comments on Wikipediocracy amount to, "Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy, an external forum whose members are often harshly critical of Wikimedia's management." This is, again, a trivial mention, and really, from what the rest of the article says, is a better reference to be used on Andreas than Wikipediocracy.

This source is about Gibraltarpedia. About Wikipediocracy, it states, "Kolbe wrote on Wikipediocracy, a site often critical of Wikimedia’s top brass." Again, this article has a fair amount to say on Andreas, but only half a sentence on Wikipediocracy. Even more trivial than trivial.

This source I could go on about its reliability, with it being The Register and about its author, Andrew Orlowski, but I have no need to. Because this article makes absolutely no mention of Wikipediocracy at all (other than in a screenshot of a Misplaced Pages conversation). Honestly, I have no idea why this source is in the article, other than for POV pushing.

This source, likewise, has no mention of Wikipediocracy and is merely being used to source the statement "co-founder of Misplaced Pages" for Larry Sanger, which doesn't really seem necessary, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This source, like the previous, confers no notability to Wikipediocracy, not even through a trivial mention.

Now i'll go back to the source that I skipped and saved for last here, because it is the one we have to focus on, that offers slightly more to the subject. However, it is about the recent Qworty incident and is the only source of any real length on Wikipediocracy, so we also have to bring up the question on whether this single event adds much by itself.

The article that I am referring to is this one. Now you can read it yourself and it certainly has a lot of references to Wikipediocracy and the information the writer was given by members there. However, it also says pretty much nothing about the site itself. Really, other than the mentions of their involvement in giving this Misplaced Pages information to the author, the article has nothing to say about the Wikipediocracy site itself.

And that's it, in a fair bit of length. If there was a single source that discussed the site in any length, even a paragraph, then this might be a different discussion. If there was anything about the site's foundings, its origins, even more about its members. But there's nothing. There are references to the site and that's all.

And as is often noted in AfD discussions, a bunch of trivial mentions don't add up to much. Trivial mentions are still trivial. And, in most cases, these are even worse than trivial. Usually what we call "trivial mentions" have at least two sentences or something on a subject, but these are, apparently, the most trivial among the trivial.

I see no real argument for notability here, once you actually take a look at the sources. Silverseren 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The closing admin should also note that this discussion is likely to bring a number of Wikipediocracy members here to vote Keep. Of my count in the past discussion, there were 4. Silverseren 04:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're at...5 WO members voting Keep now? Just trying to keep track. Silverseren 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And what is the count of anti-Wikipediocracy drama hobbyists voting Delete??? Jeesh, talk about non-germane arguments in a notability debate... Carrite (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe Wikipediocracy (WO) currently has around 400 registered members. Of those, very few have linked to their WP accounts. Therefore, it is possible that everyone who votes here, whether for or against keeping this article, is a member of WO. It is impossible to know. What matters is the strength of their arguments, not an ad hominem perspective of their possible motivations for voting. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, it is impossible to know whether someone is an unspoken member or not. I was just referring to the ones that have admitted to the link. And it is not ad hominem to note that members of the site are more likely to want to defend the site. It's called WP:COI, you may have heard of it. However, arguments do matter and I look forward to any WO members commenting here to fully admit they are WO members in this discussion and then present their arguments for why the subject is notable. That's the only proper way to do it, after all. Silverseren 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• So by this argument, Misplaced Pages editors are more likely to defend the project and be hostile to a criticism site; there they also have a COI and shouldn't be !voting here. Indeed, the nom itself is COI editing since SSeren has been criticized there. Not a sound analysis! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I suspect I may be one of the editors Silver seren speaks of when they talk of re-evaluating the sources, as I have been arguing against this article's appearance as a DYK due to questionable notability. In short, I agree completely with the analysis of the references, and despite searching, have found no indication of the existence of a single source that is independent of Wikipediocracy and offers significant coverage of the site. The time may well come when such coverage does exist, and that will be the time to consider creating this article (and potential DYK). However, due to the present lack of coverage, this article is actually a WP:COATRACK, where the real purpose is to promote criticism of Misplaced Pages itself. That article already exists, and lacking the above required non-trivial coverage of Wikipediocracy, there is no need for a duplicate. Resolute 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• "There is not much on the site itself"? Sure, Salon does not go into detail on the site's history, but it certainly goes into a lot of detail about the site's activities in revealing the story. See the following:

The fact that Qworty’s very first action as an editor was to make it just a little bit more difficult for the casual reader to stumble upon discussions questioning whether Young was involved in editing his own page raised a red flag for the Wikipediocracy editors investigating Qworty. They were further intrigued to discover that two additional edits had then been made to the archived Talk page. These edits removed the reference to Young’s supposed admission that he had written his own page and deleted the conversation in which one editor had questioned the true identity of the other editor.

According to the Wikipediocracy researchers who have gone over every edit on Robert Clark Young’s page with a brace of exceedingly fine-toothed combs, much of the early work creating and editing the page — long before Qworty made the scene — was carried out by a series of disposable sock puppets: Misplaced Pages accounts that were created, made a few edits and then disappeared forever.

There are more mentions of that nature. Some mentions use the pronoun "they" so you may not notice by searching for the term and it is clear with The Daily Dot sources and the Salon source that there is enough here to write an article. As far as trivial coverage, WP:WEB defines it as "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." In other words, stating that a site is x would not be an inherent point for notability, but a reliable source stating that the site made an important revelation regarding y is another matter. The mention in the Bicholim hoax story was of that nature. Sources saying x member was prominently involved in y is of similar significance. As far as the article in The Register, it actually has a link to a blog post on WO in the line "A fuller account of the shenanigans can be found here, which explores the governance implications in depth."--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And, as I said, the Salon article by itself doesn't give much. It's an okay source, but it's the only one of that nature. And I would suggest you look at the quotes I put above, which are indeed of the "site is x" nature. Not to mention that a link to WO isn't coverage, it's just a link. A link does not confer notability. Silverseren 07:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How is "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."" of the "site is x" nature? In fact, none say just "site is x" but also point out the significant role WO or a member of WO had in a story. "Trivial" means "of very little importance or value" and that does not accurately describe this coverage.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, as I said last time. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB, as there is a very real lack of significant coverage. For whatever reason, last time people were swayed by lots of namedrops of the website, and by almost all Keep votes violating WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON quite nicely. I'm not a member of Wikipediocracy (obviously, given some of my past statements) and have no intention of joining. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Silver seren and User:Lukeno94. While the Salon article is a good start, the other sources pointed out by Silver Seren do not fulfill WP:SIGCOV under the notability guidelines. While I do believe that the site will eventually gather more media press, Luke is correct that WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from keeping the article until such time. Ripberger (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete , Simply non-encyclopedic. It's a blog/forum notable to but a few wikipedians. It's like the Encyclopedia Britannica covering its own Christmas party. Sure all the editors went, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable after the Querty expose. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you actually give an explanation based on policy? Saying that something is notable because they were involved in something doesn't mean much if there aren't the sources for it. And there appears to only be the one source that's worth anything in regards to it actually referencing Wikipediocracy. Silverseren 09:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Silver seren makes a good case that this is essentially a case of WP:COATRACKing - using trivial mentions to pad out the article. We wouldn't allow that for other articles, so I don't see why we should allow that for this one. Prioryman (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Prioryman has an observed history of making personal attacks on the subject of this AFD, and so his !vote should be evaluated accordingly. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that the sleeper account is making this statement. So, which banned editor are you? Silverseren 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipediocracy serves a useful function but that doesn't mean it has enduring notability. I think the last AfD votes were understandably fuelled by emotions after the Qworty incident. Most of the coverage is incidental and so it does not deserve its own article. When there is significant coverage this article can be resurrected and userfied to be worked on at that point. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to say; I'm a member of the wikipediocracy forum (with few posts), if that sort of disclosure floats your boat. Merely being a member of the forum does not indicate that someone is in any wikipediocracy faction, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but thank you anyways. Silverseren 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per the sounder analysis of the initial AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you could address the specific sourcing issues that Silver seren has raised? Prioryman (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not productive. The "issues" relate to minimizing the individual import of sources rather than properly evaluating the cumulative coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep- The Salon article is a major source. If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion. On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here. The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis. The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: " trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." That kind of coverage is not what we have here. The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summar," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable. If the coverage is not trivial coverage as defined in the notability guideline then it must be non-trivial coverage. Thus, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets WP:WEB. Obviously the question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The Salon article is a major source about the Qworty incident. It is not a major source about Wikipediocracy. That's the point you guys are missing. It is a similar argument to arguing that a candidate in a local election is notable because his name was mentioned in an article about the election itself or that a minor league baseball player is notable because he got a mention for hitting a home run in a story about the game. The source justifies mentioning Wikipediocracy in the article on Robert Clark Young as it relates to his controversy, and in the criticism of Misplaced Pages article if a section on same exists, but to do anything more is WP:UNDUE as the source article is not about Wikipediocracy. Not a single independent citation in the article is about Wikipediocracy. And if there is an unused article that features significant coverage of the site, you guys have yet to reveal it. Resolute 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Would you mind explaining in detail your reference to WP:UNDUE, which is not a deletion criterion and seems to apply only to subjects whose notability is established? It doesn't seem relevant to deletion discussions in any way. Also, although the notability guideline we're dealing with is WP:WEB rather than WP:GNG, I don't suppose it could hurt to quote from that more general guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It doesn't matter whether the Salon article or any of the other sources are about Wikipediocracy or not. Your analogy to the baseball player is not apt. The discussion of Wikipediocracy in the sources is not trivial as trivial is defined in WP:WEB. Also, it wouldn't hurt to note here that your WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:COATRACK is misleading. Firstly COATRACK is an essay rather than a guideline. Secondly it is not a deletion criterion. In fact that (non-binding) essay doesn't even recommend deletion for such articles, but rather ordinary editing to solve perceived problems. Would you mind explaining how you think a non-binding essay that isn't even about deletion somehow supports your argument in a deletion discussion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • COATRACK is an essay, but it does accurately explain why the article is situated the way it is: There is so little that can actually be said about the site that the majority of the article is about other topics. And that is where I am coming from with UNDUE as well. Per the sources, literally all that can be said about Wikipediocracy itself is that it is a site dedicated to criticism of Misplaced Pages, and that some of its members contacted a Salon writer to expose an editor. That's it. And those very brief statements can easily fit within the two articles I noted above. The rest is puffery designed to create an illusion of notability. Even that very Salon article. If you can show me even a single independent article that discusses Wikipediocracy itself rather than offering a bare mention of what the site is, I will happily recant my delete !vote. But until that source exists, the keep rationales expressed thus far are nothing more than "passes GNG because I want it to". Resolute 19:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - at this point the subject is notable, per Salon article at the very least. Also shouldn't this be DRV rather than a record-breaking 2nd nomination? Finally, the kind of well-poisoning that Silver Seren is engaging in is very unseemly.Volunteer Marek 12:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• DRVs are meant to be used if there was something wrong with how the previous AfD was closed. I am not saying there was. New AfDs are meant to be opened if they are discussing an aspect for deletion that wasn't considered in a previous AfD. This AfD does that. That's why I opened a new AfD rather than a DRV. Silverseren 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I opened a new AfD rather than a DRV - less than, what, two days after the previous one was closed? And no AfD discussion can cover ALL possible aspect - what exactly is this new aspect that you refer to? That i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously? Well, that's on you, you should've looked closer first time. But even if your vote in the first AfD had been "delete", that AfD would've still been (correctly, as you note yourself) closed as "keep". And WP:SIGCOV was addressed at the first AfD (by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Keifer among others) so that's definitely not a "an aspect for deletion that wasn't considered in a previous AfD". This nom is just WP:POINTy.Volunteer Marek 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Four days, actually. And the fact that the sources weren't even really looked at in the previous AfD. Everyone just assumed that they had appropriate coverage, until I looked into them and found that it was all smoke and mirrors. Silverseren 15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, four days. Four days is still a ridiculously short amount of time to start another AfD. And when you say "sources weren't even really looked at in the previous AfD" what you mean is that YOU might not have really looked at the sources. But that's your fault. You can't assume that just because you were sloppy and lazy in your previous vote, others were too. And like I said, even if you had voted "delete" last time, it would've still been closed as snow keep. It's not all about Silver seren here.Volunteer Marek 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone just assumed? Look at the comment just after the first !vote "The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles..." My views remain as they were then.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Notwithstanding the thorough source analysis in the nom, the Salon article pushes it slightly over the line of notability in my view. - MrX 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please explain how a single source gives it notability. No single source gives any other topic notability. Silverseren 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nice straw man. I never said that a single source gives it notability. Other sources have been cited, and while some editors dismiss them all as trivial, that does not mean that they add up to nothing. - MrX 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The site is increasingly being covered by the mainstream media, becoming a source of investigative journalism efforts on the always-popular subject of Misplaced Pages. Even if it is just barely-notable and sourced only barely-sufficiently now, it is very likely to only increase in notability and sourcing over the next three to six months. No malice to trying an AFD in six months' time, if no additional sources have been put forward on the article. Noting that no similar AFD has been currently leveled against Misplaced Pages Review, I have to wonder if the current discussion here was motivated by a revenge-like agenda, rather than an earnest assessment of source validity on articles related to Misplaced Pages criticism sites. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ADHOM in that order. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

An account with less than 20 edits to its name and that has been inactive since 2011. Hello. Silverseren 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Account also notices your frequent badgering of every "Keep" opinion. Some of us are here to build a better encyclopedia. Not sure what you're here for. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Seren didn't badger me yet. I'm feeling a little neglected.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting to see that several keep votes are once again violating WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON, and "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 or stand-alone list." hasn't been met - there is not significant coverage of Wikipediocracy itself anywhere. Even the Salon source is mostly about Misplaced Pages's failings, and not about Wikipediocracy's "success" - lacking in any real substance for Wikipediocracy, and any notability it gives to WC actually fails WP:INHERIT, based on the fact that Andreas Kolbe is a WC editor, and has name dropped it wherever they can. He mentions a thread there, he mentions how they approached him and helped him, and that's pretty much it. It could easily just be an advert for the "good" they do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes notability. The source analysis above is unconvincing. I look forward to the 2-day break after this AFD closes before someone else takes a punt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This could practically be an advertisement for WP:ITSNOTABLE. Silverseren 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since this has already passed through AFD once, the burden is not on myself to provide an argument as to why it is notable. That has already been done at the article and the previous AFD. The burden is on you as the filer of the new AFD to convince me (and others) why our opinion should change since the last AFD. And I remain unconvinced by your lacklustre arguments. Now kindly stop badgering everyone who does not vote to your satisfaction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• And exactly how many people made a policy-based keep last time? Perhaps 10% of the keep voters at most. And prior AfDs do not mean that the article has a get-out-of-jail-free card... that's an absurd suggestions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I have to say, I was at first only weakly supportive of keeping this article, but after looking a bit more I found this article in The Daily Dot. Although there is only one explicit mention of WO, the whole story is about the WMF responding to allegations made in a blog post on WO so that is highly significant. There are some other examples of links to WO within a story such as this one, with this one being more significant. With Salon and Talking Writing, that is more than enough for me to say it meets WP:WEB.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• So you're saying that any news article that links to a blog or other website gives notability to that website? We really need to rewrite WEB then, because it clearly doesn't explain that properly. Silverseren 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• When a source says "x posted y on z" then proceeds to quote what x posted on z, that is significant even if the name of z is not uttered in the article itself, but a link to z is provided. That said, the first article I mentioned that does utter the name of z is the most significant one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per alf laylah wa laylah and The Devil's Advocate. One instance of substantial coverage in a RS, plus numerous non-trivial instances in other RS is sufficient to demonstrate notability. This is AFD, not the carnival game of "pitch til you win." "Stare decisis" applies. The matter has been decided in the immediate past, and nothing substantial has happened since. If the previous AFD was defective in its form or in its closing, the matter should be taken to DRV. Also, arguing repetitiously with each editor who posts a different opinion is inappropriate and disruptive. Edison (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• You can feel free to argue with anyone you want on this page, that's the point of the discussion, after all. Also, can you please explain how the single sentence or less references in the articles count as "non-trivial"? Silverseren 17:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• alf laylah wa laylah explained how the coverage is nontrivial above. That's why I cited Alf's arguments. A discussion is not improved by you repeating the same arguments after every !=vote you disagree with, although I understand it can be frustrating to see other editors not agree with your own views. You are unlikely to convince them to change their position, or to impress the closing admin with the correctness of your opinion, by repeating yourself over and over. Edison (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Journalists get pitched story-ideas every day, and many stories result from such pitches---only some of which are acknowledged. A reputable journal with editors supervising reputable journalists is a reliable source---especially since the story has had only updates and no retractions. (Too bad WP doesn't have the integrity of reliable newspapers and have a retraction section, preferably linked on the front page.) If the journalist writes in Wolfean style, the story may be more engaging: Such new journalism does not change the reliability of the source. The story is an independent source, which describes the author's independent fact checking, presumably vetted by an editor. (C.f., Resnikoff, Paul ("paul") (13 October 2011). "King Crimson can't get their music off of Grooveshark, so they cc'd Digital Music News." Digital Music News. Retrieved 30 May 2011. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). As Volunteer Marek noted, I already addressed the reliability of the main journal at the earlier AfD, contrary to many claims here. Let's chalk this up as an "off day" for the nominator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have read your comment multiple times and still don't understand its relevance to what I said above. The only source's reliability that I even mentioned was The Register and that was off-hand, since that didn't have any coverage of WO anyways. Silverseren 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per the nomination. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep - largely per User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and The Devil's Advocate. Clearly passes WP:GNG per numerous sources mentioned above, including the Dot one, and I'm wondering why it's back at AfD and not DRV. Also, I'm unimpressed by Mr. Seren's incessant hounding of contributors here who's comments he disagrees with - Alison 18:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (for the record, I'm a forum moderator and contributor there)

• Am I not allowed to respond to people in this discussion? That is the point of deletion discussions, is it not? You can feel free to respond to anyone on here as well. And thank you for acknowledging your relationship to WO, you are only the second person to do so. Now, can you please explain why these sentence long or less trivial mentions meet the GNG? Silverseren 18:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's a line where it comes across as badgering, though. IIRC, somewhere in the WP:* acronym soup there is a "nominator does not need to respond to each and every opposition argument" essay, but the title escapes me at the moment. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You might be looking for WP:BLUDGEON --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You are the gentleman and the scholar. That was exactly the page I had in mind, thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Important comment. If this is deleted, it should be moved to Misplaced Pages:Wikipediocracy to help explain to Misplaced Pages editors what Wikipediocracy is, with a cross namespace redirect. I don't think it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages to appear be censoring groups that point out its many problems, which is what this could be interpreted as. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why? We already have Criticism of Misplaced Pages, where the one or two sentences that can be actually said about Wikipediocracy can easily fit. In fact, this title would best fit as a redirect to that article. Resolute 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • For the reason I just gave perhaps? Um, OK then; another alternative: Redirect Wikipediocracy to criticism of Misplaced Pages and move the existing content to Misplaced Pages:Wikipediocracy. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. I almost said speedy keep, but I don't because I don't question the good faith intent of the nomination. Nevertheless, we just went through this, and the consensus was overwhelming. In my view, respect for the process, and for the opinions of the many editors who contributed there, strongly weigh in favor of waiting a while before revisiting this. And I have not changed my mind that the sources push the subject over the notability line, as explicated by alf and TheDevilsAdvocate, among others. NB: I have no connection whatsoever to Wikipediocracy, have so much as looked at it fewer than a half-dozen times. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep. This should be at DRV. Silver Seren should know this better than most, being someone who has previously criticised editors for multiple AfDs (except they didn't try it on just four days later). It's quite ironic that he's usually more visible on AfDs repeatedely badgering people to keep articles until it suits his own agenda. Someone ought to close this. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep - It is out of process and potentially disruptive to attempt to overturn a close by immediately relisting a Keep close at AfD. The correct process is to seek overturn of the decision at Deletion Review. Trout for the nominator. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• DRV is meant to be if you felt there was something out of process about the close or the closer's argument. Things are meant to be taken to AfD again if there is a different avenue of discussion that is brought up. That is why I took it to AfD rather than DRV. Silverseren 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep No evidence presented that anything has changed in the last four days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• How does that address the sources? Silverseren 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per what I said last time, and per 'what the fuck is a Wikipediocracy member anyway?' I'm registered there - you have to be to read some of the forum - but I certainly don't align myself with some of the self-indulgent egoist regulars who frequent the place. The idea that forum members will necessarily vote in unison is simply ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you repeat what you said last time, in regards to the sources? As for "The idea that forum members will necessarily vote in unison is simply ridiculous". WO members do, always. I have yet to see an exception to that. Silverseren 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And how do you know who is and who isn't a Wikipediocracy forum member? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. What's changed since the last few days is that some editors appear to be more willing to examine the sources more closely than during the original AfD. However, I would also caution that it's a fool's game trying to note which editors contributing to this page are also members of the site's forum. It costs nothing to assume good faith on both sides. This isn't a vote, and if the closing admin is contentious in his or her job then it shouldn't matter what contributors to this page declare. Anything else just bogs the page down in irrelevancies. As for the argument, I looked at this a few days ago after another editor recommended I visit the site. The bulk of what I found (and posted elsewhere) follows: I thought the sourcing somewhat weak at that point, so conducted a little exercise that involved stripping out any links and references that wouldn't ordinarily be used to help establish notability. Some were primary sources or links to the site itself, others didn't mention it at all, and the rest amounted to nothing more than "hat tips" or trivial mentions in articles that were almost wholly about other subjects. That's not to say that they wouldn't be included in the article in order to report on the site's activities and provide context, just that on their own they shouldn't be used to give the appearance that the site has been the subject of significant coverage, as the notability guideline requires. As it stands, only the Salon.com article could be said to approach this standard, and even then only weakly. One weak source that discusses the site in the context of one incident isn't enough for me. Steve  21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep This shouldn't have been opened 4 days after the last one.--Rockfang (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Procedurally closed . You should have challenged a "keep" by taking this to WP:DRV, not by immediately opening a new AFD. I'm going to open a DRV and copy your nomination statement from here to there. DRV sometimes returns a decision of "open a new AFD"; if they do that, we can simply unclose this one. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict; written before closure) Keep. First of all, I question the value of renominating this or any article for deletion just four days after a prior AFD closed as Keep, in the absence of a supervening BLP issue or the like. In any event, Wikipediocracy has become sufficiently notable to warrant an article here based on some of the sources that have been cited. At this point, the site is at least as notable as its now-moribund predecessor Misplaced Pages Review, which has enjoyed (?) an article for several years. And although we don't rely on future events as the basis for notability, the notability of Wikipediocracy is almost sure to continue to increase: Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia, for all of their positive attributes that keep us contributing, will continue to have faults and foibles that Wikipediocracy will seek to expose and publicize, sometimes fairly and sometimes otherwise. If we delete this now, we'll be having an agonizing debate again about whether enough has changed to warrant inclusion some three or six months from now; let's not do that to ourselves. For what it's worth, I do not believe this article should be mainpaged—in general, including articles that the general public would perceive as navel-gazing on the main page should be avoided—but that is a different question from whether the article should exist at all. Finally, I hope that the community will devote only a reasonably proportionate amount of time to this entire discussion, recognizing that while this AFD may matter very much to our "inside baseball" crowd, the short-term fate of this article is of limited importance in the grander scheme of wikithings. In the fast few days, a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) have looked back at the damage done by Qworty and asked "why wasn't this problem identified much sooner?" Part of the answer is that sometimes we collectively focus too much of the community's most precious resource, which is our contributors' time and attention, not on improving our articles and making sure that we treat our fellow editors and our article subjects fairly, but on digressions like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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.