Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of Misplaced Pages controversies - 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 the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 14:17, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 April 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.
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. It's clearly snowing Spartaz 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Misplaced Pages controversies

List of Misplaced Pages controversies (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)

This list is the product of an off-wiki collaboration involving a number of users from Wikipediocracy, a fairly notorious anti-Misplaced Pages website. It was created by one Wikipediocracy user, Jayen466. Its development is being promoted with cash rewards (paid editing!) by something called "The Wikipediocracy Fund", doing business as SB Johnny, another Wikipediocracy user (see ). The page history shows that it has been heavily edited by various IP editors, very likely representing input from the banned users whom Wikipediocracy mainly serves. It is being promoted on Wikipediocracy by a long-term banned user, Thekohser. It suffers from two unsalvageable problems which require its deletion. First, it is inherently non-neutral, as the choice of what "controversies" to include is completely arbitrary. It seems to be intended as a "greatest hits" list for Wikipediocracy and its predecessor, Misplaced Pages Review, which Jayen466 has used as a referenced source despite its complete unreliability. Second and relatedly, it falls foul of notability requirements. A list topic "is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is clearly not the case here, as the list is an entirely arbitrary choice selected by Wikipediocracy users who have played a direct role in some of the controversies - there is no suggestion in the article that the topic and the controversies listed have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", as WP:LISTN requires. It is little more than a cherry-picking of negative news stories from Misplaced Pages:Press coverage. The fundamental premise of this list is flawed; because of that it is unsalvageable and for that reason it should be deleted. Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people seem to think that I've raised the word "controversies" in the article title as an issue. I haven't. It's irrelevant. This is about NPOV in the contents and notability in the subject matter. Prioryman (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Uh...Keep. In the rant above Prioryman focuses on issues which are completely irrelevant to deletion requirements. There are plenty of lists and articles with the word "controversy" in the title. The list satisfies notability requirement as much if not more than these kinds of lists on Misplaced Pages. It's not only NOT "uinsalvageable" it's actually pretty good to begin with (doesn't even NEED salvaging). Basically a bad faithed nom in pursuit of a grudge.Volunteer Marek 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you point out where the contents of the list have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", to meet the requirements of WP:LISTN? That's an absolutely central issue for deletion requirements. If no such sources exist (and they are not cited) the article has no reason to exist. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is that you are misrepresenting WP:LISTN. Here's what it really says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I've underlined the part you've left out, for some strange reason. "One accepted reason" means it is one of several possible reasons. It is a sufficient not a necessary condition. You've also, for some strange reason, left out this part There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. Incidentally I'm guessing it's this last part that is the loophole which allows many many many lists much more deserving of deletion to exist on Misplaced Pages. Why not go after those rather than pursuing petty grudges? Volunteer Marek 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • You are, in fact, misreading LISTN. The contents of the list don't have to be discussed as a group by the sources, the topic of the list does: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is only one substantial argument made by the nominator, which is related to his invocation of LISTN. It is obviously the case that this topic has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Here are some:
These are book sources only. There are many more in journals, but the ones I've provided are clearly enough to establish that the list subject meets the GNG. Perhaps the nominator would do well to read WP:BEFORE.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
How can books published in 2009 and 2010 cover controversies happening in 2011, 2012 and 2013? Do these books cover the controversies listed in the article? Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are misreading LISTN. The sources discuss the nature of controversies involving Misplaced Pages. The fact that they discuss various controversies as a group establishes that the concept of Misplaced Pages controversies is itself notable. Once the concept is established as notable there can be a list article on it. Once there's a list article on it anything in the scope of the list can be included. It's not even necessary that the individual entries be notable: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." However, each of the entries on this list has been shown to be notable through the use of reliable sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Misplaced Pages controversies" have been discussed in the media here, and in a closely-related way, here and here. As for precedent in Misplaced Pages lists, please see:
- List of controversial album art
- List of controversial video games
- List of controversial elections
- List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- Controversies involving the Indian Premier League
- Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (U.S.)
- Controversies in autism
- Boy Scouts of America membership controversies
- Controversies related to Vishwaroopam
Et cetera, et cetera. Prioryman should explain why he has elected to focus only on this list, yet none of the other similar lists and articles about controversies have irked him. Is it possible that Prioryman is an "involved party" who personally has it in for Wikipediocracy, and so this is a means of his personal revenge? Misplaced Pages is not a revenge platform. And this particular list is a clear keep. - 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (UTC).
Read what I said. I didn't say anything about the title being an issue. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Read what I said. You're finished here. - 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no relationship with WR or WO, but saw this mentioned on a noticeboard on my watchlist. First, the identities of individuals involved in editing this article is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Second, the concerns about neutrality and arbitrariness deserve to be taken seriously, but in my opinion can be overcome through good-faith negotiation at the talk page. (From my perspective, the standard for inclusion seems fairly obvious and objective: any controversy substantially involving Misplaced Pages that gained notable mention in reliable, independent sources. Details can be worked out in Talk.) Third, what makes editor identity "mostly irrelevant" but not entirely so, in my opinion, is that the article and this AfD seem to be yet another venue for the ongoing WR/WO-related battles. That doesn't have much bearing on the suitability of the article for deletion in terms of content, but if the article is providing an "attractive nuisance" for some folks, perhaps it needs to be kept under close watch by admins not afraid to put out fires or issue sanctions. alanyst 18:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agreed to represent "the Wikipediocracy fund" and post to the Reward board because it's a very clear case of an effort that is good for both Wikipedians and Misplaced Pages's critics: both groups certainly agree that Misplaced Pages is important, and these "controversies" are certainly notable and frequently get press. Having an NPOV, well-annotated, and well-sourced list is the best way to inform readers about the topic, particularly bearing in mind that this page will almost undoubtedly be the first google result for searches on the topic, if it isn't already. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You plainly have a conflict of interest in the matter, as your fronting for this "Wikipediocracy Fund" is a textbook case of "contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", as WP:COI puts it. If BP had put up a reward from the "Petroleum Fund" for editors to contribute to a list of articles describing controversies over global warming, you'd be able to hear the screaming about COI all the way from here to whatever fetid basement Wikipediocracy is being operated from. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of reliable sources on the concept, and plenty of reliable sources for events. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipediocracy an independent reliable source on its own activities? Huh what? Isn't the Wikipediocracy domain owned by the guy who is banned from Misplaced Pages for his paid editing shenanigins? I wonder what interests are going on there, then. Quite apart from that, Wikipediocracy would never be even a reliable source, never mind an independent one. It's the website that has one member of staff who comments on the tech industry while asserting that Cambridge is a tech "backwater" (see Silicon Fen), and another member of staff who comments on the NHS while asserting that a Surgical Registrar is an office worker (see Surgical Registrar). I'm quite attracted to the idea of encyclopedias being written by subject matter experts qualified in the field they're writing on, rather than by Randy from Boise, but this lot are really the opposite extreme to that vision. If they ever want to be taken seriously as a source, they should write about things they actually know about (whatever that may be). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly meets notability requirements, and other than that, the nom consist of little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Alison 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per User_talk:Alison. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep essentially per alanyst. Taking away the commentary about WR/WO role in editing this article, which is not relevant to the deletion discussion, the nominator raises two substantive concerns. The first can be addressed by defining nonarbitrary threshholds, and the 2nd arises from a misunderstanding. Now as far as editorial practice, the criterion for inclusion and sourcing should not be mention on a discussion site - it is not a RS. However, that seems to be being taken care of through editing and hence doesn't need to be discussed here. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there any evidence of coverage from sources that are chronologically independent of the subject? Any books? Any academic journals? Misplaced Pages is not the newspaper, and enforcement of that provision means that we need non-news coverage for the controversies in question, regardless of the WP:LISTN question. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The general subject matter has been covered in the RS listed above. This is clearly notable, and should not be deleted merely because it reflects unfavorably on Misplaced Pages. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Appropriate, notable, objective, useful, interesting and, frankly, awesome. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:58, 16 April 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.
Category: