| Revision as of 15:26, 23 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (relist)← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:56, 23 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| The AfD discussion closed with no consensus, yet the article was kept deleted. I have some new information, as well as a problem with how the discussion was interpreted. | |||
| 1. After having read through the entire thing, it seems that the main argument made by those in favor of deletion was that it is not significant outside of a specific community (namely the gaming community). Surely following this criteria would result in the deletion of at least half of Misplaced Pages articles. There are plenty of articles whose specific interest is not only limited to the gaming community, but to the community of one particular game. See Leeroy Jenkins or the numerous articles on popular Starcraft players. | |||
| 2. The other crux that the deletion argument rested on was the 'unverifiability' factor. It is true that at the time, the article's proponents could not find any genuine news publications referring to the phenomenon. I have a problem with this criteria. The mainstream news media cannot be expected to cover every internet meme, and they are notoriously slow to do so even when they do. They took several months with "Numa Numa" - they usually do it when it becomes nothing short of a global explosion. Is it such a huge surprise that most of the references to internet memes are made on -gasp!- the internet? It's one thing to rely on forums or websites for information and claims. That's obviously risky. But it's another thing to see that a particular topic keeps popping up again and again on all sorts of popular forums and in different languages (see the original deletion review for those references) just to establish that it is indeed popular with a certain community. The Google Test should be enough to establish notability with regard to Internet memes, due to the very nature of an internet meme. | |||
| Regardless, I've found two references to Angry Nintendo Nerd that do not come from forum threads. Of course, the people who deleted the article probably won't settle for anything less than Time or Newsweek, but here goes: | |||
| http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/07/11/4cr-interview-angry-nintendo-nerd/ | |||
| http://www.ghacks.net/2006/08/15/angry-nintendo-nerd-videos/ | |||
| 3. This is becoming a serious problem on Misplaced Pages that I think needs to be addressed on a global scale, with an entire discussion devoted to the topic. I'm talking, of course, about the flame wars that break out over the addition of Internet Memes. It seems many editors seem to think that Misplaced Pages should only contain information on serious and useful topics, and go around deleting pages that they know nothing about, such as deleting a band page or an internet meme just because they haven't heard of it. Of course, this is to some extent necessary to keep out articles for no-name bands or internet videos that no one has seen other than the creator and their friends. But there are mountains of proof that a startling majority of Misplaced Pages editors (or at least the ones with influence) are hopelessly out of the loop and should not presume that they know what's popular from what's not. It took months of struggle to get the Chuck Norris facts to have even a brief mention in the Chuck Norris article. Now the phenomenon has its own well documented and excellent page, but at least a year after the phenomenon had peaked. The article for Talk Like a Pirate day was repeatedly deleted even though there was a link to send e-cards for it on the MSN front page. Articles for music groups are deleted on a daily basis, without even bothering to check that the bands have releases listed on Amazon (see the discussion for Hot Cross, for example). It is clear that there is an overzealous elite who does not represent the younger internet community. Unfortunately, this discourages said younger internet community from becoming more involved in Misplaced Pages and creates a vicious cycle. | |||
| In conclusion, you can see that this is not as much about the article as it is about the principle. I apologize for the length of this post, but I think this is topic is crucial to the continued survival of Misplaced Pages, and this seemed the most appropriate place. If anyone knows a better place for it, please move it there. {{unsigned|69.116.27.11|00:53, October 19, 2006}} | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion.''' The AFD was initially closed no consensus by an involved non-admin, then reopened by an admin, then closed as delete by an admin. Looking at the AFD, I see a lot of socks but no real sources other than some handwaving about being famous on YouTube. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' When removing the single purpose accounts, ] presents a rather clear consensus. Though I respect the arguments of the anon who started this deletion review, I can't find sufficient notability for Angry Nintendo Nerd to even warrant another AfD discussion. From my perspective, AMIB's reading of the AfD- that it was closed by a non-admin who had !voted "weak keep" on the article, and that almost every single keep !vote was from an SPA- is completely correct. While the above user does cite references to Angry Nintendo Nerd, they do not come from ] (and believe me, ''a lot'' of publications and web sites qualify as reliable sources). I am a huge gamer, and, at 21, either part of the "younger internet community" or a recent graduate of said community; I can't find any significance for the subject, and I certainly can't find any ''verifiable'' importance, so there's no reason to have an article on him. -- ] 05:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' - You don't need ] or ], but you do need ''something''. Heck, even several specific YTMNDs had short articles in ]. Self-proclaimed, unreported-on "phenomena" and "memes" have no place in an encyclopedia. This is not a bias specifically against memes (some of them are readily verifiable) – it is a bias against unverifiable information that we have no way of fact checking for. As for your first point, do you really think articles get deleted specifically because people aren't interested in it? If so, you really haven't spent as much as you think here. I'm 21 as well and also an avid gamer, I read sites like SomethingAwful, B3ta, YTMND, and such daily, so I'm not quite sure why you seem to think we're all doddering 65 year old men who are only interested in ] and have no interest in your new-fangled internet. Anyways, Misplaced Pages is an ''encyclopedia'' – everything must verifiable with reliable sources, otherwise it just becomes a distorted Wikiality. ] 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse Deletion''', valid AFD. ] 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Information of possible interest''': A few days ago, an ] known as {{user|Xdrake}} posted ] to ] asking that we create a new article called ]. I denied the request based on the salting of ] and informed ] of the request, which led to him preemptively salting ] as well. You may wish to take this into account when !voting. --] 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **First, ] regarding users with low contributions, especially when they have to go to Articles for Creation because they're new. Second, we're salting articles that never existed now? Huh? --] <small>]</small> 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***There's no ] issue here. I was patrolling ], I saw the request. I had already decided to decline the request as the article was nn as proposed, but I decided to take a quick peek at ] to see if I could tell the newbie editor that, in effect, the article already existed and he was free to go edit it there. Instead, I discovered that it had been salted long ago following a sock-infested AfD and a G4. Given those circumstances, I dropped a note to ] (as he was the last one to protect the page) to let him know about it in case he thought further action would be needed. I guess he did, since he salted the new page as well. The end. If this DRV is successful and the article is recreated, fine by me. --] 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion'''. My favourite line from the nomination: "''The mainstream news media cannot be expected to cover every internet meme...''" That's correct of course, but if your local newspaper doesn't think internet videos are worthy of coverage between their articles an church bake sales and school field days, what on earth makes you think a worldwide general-interest encyclopedia should cover them? ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 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
The Demented Cartoon Movie
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Demented Cartoon Movie (2nd nomination) 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! --Ridesim 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 verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. 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. Wickethewok 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 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 <references/> tag, and preview. What we get is 1) urban dictionary, 2) you-tube and 3) video.google.com. These are not reliable sources as they are sites that anyone can edit, which is the reason that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source by our standards. GRBerry 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. Guy 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse colsure: Although Wickethewok 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 WP:WEB. If there was a case to be made based on unique hits per WP:GOOGLE or traffic per alexa rank, it was not made in the debate. -MrFizyx 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. Wickethewok 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- In response to never addressing WP:WEB, I did, but Albino Blacksheep was determined to not be an online publisher. --Ridesim 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? -MrFizyx 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- In response to never addressing WP:WEB, I did, but Albino Blacksheep was determined to not be an online publisher. --Ridesim 01:12, 19 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. Wickethewok 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - per procedure. Tony Fox is right, no evidence was given -- Tawker 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. Valid AfD, keep voters could not show how series met WP:WEB despite repeated requests to do so. NeoChaosX 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
- As the closing admin, my reasoning was that neither the delete arguments nor the keep arguments were fully addressed, and there seemed to be no clear thoughts as to whether it should be redirected. I disregarded the OR claims concerning the fact that the Sixth Party System must have come into existence by now, but I did note Uncle G's point of Aldrich's claim and Septentrionalis' own research revealing that articles had been written concerning at least the concept of a Sixth Party System. The claims made in the article may have been badly skewed toward the existence of a Sixth Party System, but I judged that would be a matter for cleanup or merging (as I stated when closing).Yomangani 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- While I think this really should have closed as a clear keep due to the obvious references to the system, endorse closure anyway. I originally said keep due to UncleG's statement, but looking back at it, I'm more compelled by Septentrionalis's delete recommendation, where he notes the amount of citations. The article needs to be written accurately, for sure, but that's not a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn, delete, userfy on request. Closing admins need to understand that they are guardians of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR first, guardians of consensus second. The article is, after 5 days of prodding and 11 days of discussion, still wholly unsourced. The onus to establish keepability per those three policies is on the editors, and in extension keep voters. Instead of positive evidence we mostly got assertions and "looks good to me" waffle during the AfD. As long as this article doesn't establish that it isn't OR and reflects more than a fringe PoV it has no business in the mainspace. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a better solution at this stage be to take the citations available at the AfD and incorporate them? It's one thing if sources don't exist, it's another completely if they just haven't been incorporated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD makes only one citation for this idea; that's all there is. That's the problem. I think trying to put in an average of all 23 articles would look like the last paragraph of Fifth Party System, and that's not an article. Septentrionalis 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Stubs aren't bad things, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neither are redirects. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- But stubs are better than redirects. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not always. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was being somewhat coy with that last response, but I'm not entirely sure how your links qualify with this situaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article gives undue weight to Aldrich's single, rarely cited view (one of the five papers that does is also on the list; it cites him for the 1994 critical election, but denies the 1964-8 critical election.) Septentrionalis 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- So merely having the article gives it undue weight? This is a new one for me. Am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I don't think that qualifies here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- So merely having the article gives it undue weight? This is a new one for me. Am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article gives undue weight to Aldrich's single, rarely cited view (one of the five papers that does is also on the list; it cites him for the 1994 critical election, but denies the 1964-8 critical election.) Septentrionalis 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was being somewhat coy with that last response, but I'm not entirely sure how your links qualify with this situaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not always. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- But stubs are better than redirects. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neither are redirects. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Stubs aren't bad things, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD makes only one citation for this idea; that's all there is. That's the problem. I think trying to put in an average of all 23 articles would look like the last paragraph of Fifth Party System, and that's not an article. Septentrionalis 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a better solution at this stage be to take the citations available at the AfD and incorporate them? It's one thing if sources don't exist, it's another completely if they just haven't been incorporated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Delete It's original research. Deleting it should be strightforward. Why is this still a question? Eusebeus 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete, due to absence of discussion in the academic press. This is notionally an academic concept, so if it's not covered by several papers in the peer-reviewed journals it's somewhere between original research and a report of one man's protologism. Guy 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: seems that very little content could meet WP:V, why not merge and redirect to Fifth Party System? -MrFizyx 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I tried that on Seventh Party System, now deleted on much the same grounds, and was immediately reverted. Septentrionalis 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Both this and Seventh Party System should redirect to Fifth Party System, which they now do. Phil Sandifer 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wish you hadn't done that in the middle of a discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wish we would stop using DRV to paralyze common sense decisions so that we are instead bound into the "consensus" created by this den of idiocy, but hey, nobody gets everything they want. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wish you hadn't done that in the middle of a discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Delete as the relevant content has been merged into Fifth Party System and the previous article gave undue weight to a minority idea. I also updated the template. I've added this article to my to-do list and will attempt a rewrite soon. In leiu of spamming, I'd ask interested parties to add Sixth Party System to their watchlist. When I get to it, I'll put the new version on that talk page and folks can comment before it goes back into mainspace.Kchase T 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Closure Septentrionalis complains that sources don't exist but my keep recomendation was based upon his own listing of acedemic references. Eluchil404 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)