Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 3

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ParisianBlade (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 3 May 2008 (Reverted edits by Sceptre (talk) to last version by Urban Rose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:41, 3 May 2008 by ParisianBlade (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Sceptre (talk) to last version by Urban Rose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< May 2	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 4 >

3 May 2008

Encyclopedia Dramatica

First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability is not a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated. What it boils down to is whether or not the sources are reliable. A link to a draft of the article with all of the sources can be found here. And also, I ask editors to remember that Misplaced Pages is not censored and to only vote against recreation if they truly believe that the sources are unreliable, not simply because of personal feelings they have toward the site. Pretending that something doesn't exist just because one hates it is juvenile. So are the sources reliable or not? Urban Rose 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica (closed)

Encyclopedia Dramatica – Reclosing this for the second time. We have a consensus - i.e we want to see an extremely well written draft with impecable sources before we touch this again. – Spartaz 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
First off, if notability is a concern, I definitely think the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranks above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches. So notability is not an issue. The next issue is that it is not covered in reliable sources, which I believe is also false. For a list of sources, see here and here (and please read the latter of the two pages for a list of further rationale for the article's recreation). And a third point that I need to address is that I realize that it is impossible for many Misplaced Pages editors to vote on this objectively, as they have been the subjects of articles created for the site. I myself have been the subject of an article and have had my image uploaded to the site (though I have since created an account and have been accepted), and I haven't allowed my annoyance at this to cloud my judgement. What this boils down to I believe is that some Wikipedians simply aren't willing to give ED an article regardless of it's notability or coverage by multipe reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not censored, so unless you are willing to vote objectively I suggest that you not vote at all. I do believe that it is possible to vote in favor of the article's deletion and be objective, but I have my doubts that most deletion votes this nomination will receive will be objective. (Also, to all those ED haters out there, try thinking about creating an article on ED this way: The more people who no about the site, the more people will realize how offensive the site is and will support you in your hatred of it.) Urban Rose 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Here are the sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6LqhrdAxg http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/PKG6BKQQA41.DTL&type=printable New York Times ED is a parody site Guardian on Bush tl;dr Note 140,000 Google hits List of references--Urban Rose 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I agree with you on this, but fully expect you to get shouted down rapidly in the standard visceral emotional reaction that comes up here whenever the dreaded name of ED comes up. Dan T. (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Comment there was a really fantastic draft article written up and proposed here a few weeks ago, but I forget who did it. It was thoroughly sourced. Chubbles (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC) It was probably deleted. Apparently even subpages that mention edit are deleted.--Urban Rose 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Encyclopedia Dramatica – Reclosing this for the second time. We have a consensus - i.e we want to see an extremely well written draft with impecable sources before we touch this again. – Spartaz 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

First off, if notability is a concern, I definitely think the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranks above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches. So notability is not an issue. The next issue is that it is not covered in reliable sources, which I believe is also false. For a list of sources, see here and here (and please read the latter of the two pages for a list of further rationale for the article's recreation). And a third point that I need to address is that I realize that it is impossible for many Misplaced Pages editors to vote on this objectively, as they have been the subjects of articles created for the site. I myself have been the subject of an article and have had my image uploaded to the site (though I have since created an account and have been accepted), and I haven't allowed my annoyance at this to cloud my judgement. What this boils down to I believe is that some Wikipedians simply aren't willing to give ED an article regardless of it's notability or coverage by multipe reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not censored, so unless you are willing to vote objectively I suggest that you not vote at all. I do believe that it is possible to vote in favor of the article's deletion and be objective, but I have my doubts that most deletion votes this nomination will receive will be objective. (Also, to all those ED haters out there, try thinking about creating an article on ED this way: The more people who no about the site, the more people will realize how offensive the site is and will support you in your hatred of it.) Urban Rose 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources:

I agree with you on this, but fully expect you to get shouted down rapidly in the standard visceral emotional reaction that comes up here whenever the dreaded name of ED comes up. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment there was a really fantastic draft article written up and proposed here a few weeks ago, but I forget who did it. It was thoroughly sourced. Chubbles (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was probably deleted. Apparently even subpages that mention edit are deleted.--Urban Rose 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mark Prindle

I feel that the only reason this page was deleted was because anonymous users defended it, despite some of their arguments. Mark Prindle is a notable personality and has done many interviews of other notable personalities. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim? D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The AfD brought up these books which reference him: "Enter Naomi" by Joe Carducci, "Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story of the Ramones" by Everett True, and "Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and the Fall" by Simon Ford. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  - The sources appear to have been considered at the AFD. You haven't said but have you discussed the close with the deleting admin and notified them of the DRV. Offline sources are acceptable but need to discuss the subject in depth as any other sources. Not having seen them I can't comment on them. Can you help with some detail of what the sources actually say about this individual. Spartaz 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cameron Belford (closed)

Cameron Belford – Article restored. D.M.N. (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cameron Belford (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Now played in a professional football game as per WP:WPF Kingjamie (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Undelete - Now passes notability criteria. – Pee Jay 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Undelete per PeeJay2K3. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I have restored it.--Bedford 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cameron Belford – Article restored. D.M.N. (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Now played in a professional football game as per WP:WPF Kingjamie (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Undelete - Now passes notability criteria. – Pee Jay 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Undelete per PeeJay2K3. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it.--Bedford 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Cab

I've been wanting to do this for a long, long time. This Internet buzz band made a big splash before their debut album came out...with the result that their Misplaced Pages page has been A7'ed no less than twelve times (under the cab, not currently protected, and The Cab, which is). As of last Tuesday, they've finally released a physical full-length album. I'd like to have this title Unsalted and my user draft moved to mainspace. Chubbles (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreate from Draft another Chubbles rescue job completed. The closing admin may wish to undelete the history when they unsalt the page. Spartaz 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreate new draft clearly establishes passage of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Acadie (closed)

Dutch Acadie – Article is currently under discussion at AfD and extant; accordingly, any DRV is premature – Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dutch Acadie (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` It does not meet any requierments for deletion, for some unkown reason a few people want to delete this article I do not know why. The tag has already been taken off once but now it is back on. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)) Close. This is a place to review articles that have already been deleted or had a deletion discussion. This article has not. It's currently under discussion here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dutch Acadie – Article is currently under discussion at AfD and extant; accordingly, any DRV is premature – Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

It does not meet any requierments for deletion, for some unkown reason a few people want to delete this article I do not know why. The tag has already been taken off once but now it is back on. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Close. This is a place to review articles that have already been deleted or had a deletion discussion. This article has not. It's currently under discussion here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

XtremeData

The company is obviously notable. See my arguments on User_talk:Orangemike#Deletion of XtremeData. Some examples of third-party coverage, some several years old, was on the now-deleted discussion page. Oxda (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Oxda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

List at Afd seems to be enough for a debate. DGG (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose overturn - No assertion of notability in article; creator and only editor is a s.p.a. with an admitted COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noting, but WP:COI doesn't ever say that having a COI compeltely disallows a user from editing on the topic they have a COI in. Now, if they do they'll have to bend over backwards staying neutral, but it appears this editor has from what I read at your talk page. And being a WP:SPA doesn't mean we should ignore the user. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm or deny the requirement that notability be established in the article itself, please? I didn't see anywhere that that was necessary. And here is some of third-party coverage which is not just reprints of PRs: 2008 - , (starts with a large picture of XtremeData module); 2007 - , ; 2006 - , , -- just a random selection, there's a lot more. Oxda (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

List at AFD there appear to be sources... some are press releases but some appear not to be. I can't see the article, so if it's unsalvageable I guess the admin who closes this DRV can just opt to allow recreation. --Rividian (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)