Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:58, 6 August 2018

The Internet of Garbage

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

The Internet of Garbage (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)

Shamelessly created to make a WP:Point related to the ongoing Sarah Jeong controversy. Trying to manufacture notability for a subject. No coverage in reliable, prominent, mainstream secondary sources. Remember: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

N.B. The book (or ebook, I should say, it was never printed) isn't even available for purchase. Not listed anywhere. Not even an ISBN. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Passes the relevant notability guideline. The motivation of the article's original creator is irrelevant if the content itself is legitimate, and notability is not temporary. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Did you read the the relevant notability guideline? It says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I count a potential one (Berkman Klein Center, if Youtube counts as a publication?). Can you cite any of the other criteria if fulfills? ("The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Misplaced Pages's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.")ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• References 3, 7 and 9 meet the first criterion. That's sufficient by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• The policy reads "non-trivial published works" not "any random website". What the heck is "themarysue.com"? You realize the sources you're citing as notable, don't even have Misplaced Pages pages themselves? The book is not even reviewed in the ZDNet URL you cite. This degree of desperation is rather amusing.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Mary Sue is a well-known culture publication, and I wasn't citing ZDNet as an in-depth review. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• So well-known that it is less well-known than this particular subject? Hehehe. So you admit that ZDNet is a trivial mention. So, now we're down to 2. I guess it all rests on your measure of "The Mary Sue"'s notability. Well, let's see, Google Books turns up nothing.... and zero secondary references in Google Scholar too.... while it's Alexa rank is 20,859th... lower than many football club messageboards. Still wanna play this game? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was citing three references as in-depth, none of which were ZDNet. The numbers refer to this revision. XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh! So you were citing a blog called Techdirt? Thanks for clearing that up. But no, sorry, blogs don't count as notable RS. Thanks for clearing that up then, you're back down to 1 secondary source. We're agreed then, not enough to reach the notability criteria, yes? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Techdirt is suitable for this purpose per WP:BLOGS. And there is now a fourth in-depth discussion, in Poland (2016). XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that post doesn't make any sense to me. Can you try writing it again? Can you quote what policy in WP:BLOGS supports your claim? And what about Poland in 2016? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I feel like the authors allegations break Misplaced Pages rules such as the Assume the good faith rule, No crystal balling rule and the Don't offend other users. If anything, he is trying to make a point here . The article passes notability guidelines too. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Important comment The nominator has simply removed other people's comments as well as votes to keep the article from this very page as he did here for example: Openlydialectic (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates