Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Pirates versus Ninjas (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Minkle Slowberries (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 31 May 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:11, 31 May 2010 by Minkle Slowberries (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Pirates versus Ninjas

AfDs for this article:
Pirates versus Ninjas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should just be a summary in List of Internet phenomena. As the article stands, it's just a single line of actual information followed by a (largely self-serving) list of places that mention the phenomenon. This is only ever going to become a horrible mess; it's just not necessary or helpful. Misplaced Pages does not need to be a hub for pirate/ninja humour. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Those aren't sources, they're just links. A reference is something attached to information to show where that information comes from. The article is essentially a portal. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I read two of the points in the article, followed the reference links to the relevant page and the information was there. I'm not sure what you are talking about? Perhaps you think that the wp article has to have exactly the same words as that on the cited page? Unless they are direct quotes they don't, they have to demonstrate the point is factually correct, not taken out of context or otherwise skewed. I don't necessarily disagree that the article looks a bit like a portal, but this is an internet meme, so articles like this will always look like a portal, it lives on the internet and nowhere else much. To me the article looks fine and the cites look fine, so I don't really have much else to say on the matter now. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There are more links to other articles and websites than there are words in the informative part of the article. They're not references, they're indiscriminate trivia. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This the place for notable memes. Note that your suggestion to keep and improve is same as the result of the first AfD request. It didn't work then, and I don't see why now is any different. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
As you know so much about Misplaced Pages, you'll be kind enough to let us know the accounts you've edited under before? Actually, keeping and improving is not the same as merging to a list, and if you want to improve it using the sources I've found, please do go ahead, and then you can withdraw this nomination. Fences&Windows 20:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Why should he/she have to talk about previous accounts? This isn't a social club or popularity contest, is it? It's supposed to be a repository of information. Or was once. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a legitimate accusation to make (with y'know, facts and evidence to back it up) then please go through the official channels so that it can be dealt with. If your comment is as it appears, please find better ways to cope with opinions that do not match your own. Have a read through Misplaced Pages:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Per the duck test, an account created for the purpose of nominating an article for deletion that uses jargon like AfD is not a new user and is probably a sockpuppet. Using an alternative account to nominate articles for deletion is not a legitimate use. As for WP:NOT, try reading WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not a "test" of anything, that's outright attack via policy! Nominating an article for deletion is not unusual behaviour, and is in fact something that Misplaced Pages explicitly suggests that you create an account for. Not every new user deserves to be accused of sockpuppetry for not being a blustering idiot.
Can you find anything that satisfies Misplaced Pages:Notability_(memes) in any way? Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Which ones, specifically? I would expect very clear and concrete violations of those rules to qualify your claim--not vague interpretations--so I must be particularly dense in not seeing any. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Any of those points could be twisted to argue for the inclusion of any non-inflammatory content in Misplaced Pages, which is no doubt how poor articles like this manage to exist. Similarly, I could interpret them to suit my argument: 2) I read it, understood it, and saw the poor editing. Didn't come to the conclusion that the article should stay in spite of this. 3) It's beyond tagging, but I would agree that tags would be an improvement should the article stay. 4) Considered it, proposed it. It should redirect to a blurb in the Internet memes article. 7) Read it, didn't come to the same conclusion as you. 9) Apparently we disagree on what is a source and what is cruft/spam. 10) Not a recent article, history suggests that it's an unsalvageable mess.
I'm yet to see an argument showing the content to be useful. Instead we're just told that it's a popular meme (so? It belongs on the popular Internet meme page as suggested in the nomination) and that it has a lot of sources (Misplaced Pages likes sources, right? So we'll just call the inappropriate collection of links sources and pretend that this makes the content legitimate...? No.) Minkle Slowberries (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Categories: