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 an old revision of this page, as edited by Prioryman (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 16 April 2013 (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Misplaced Pages controversies. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:32, 16 April 2013 by Prioryman (talk | contribs) (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Misplaced Pages controversies. using TW)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 banned users and trolls from Wikipediocracy. 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 (see ). It is being promoted off-wiki 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 off-wiki agitators. 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) Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories: