This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miltopia (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 9 November 2006 (→[]: - verifiability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:16, 9 November 2006 by Miltopia (talk | contribs) (→[]: - verifiability)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < November 8 | November 10 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
9 November 2006
File:Ottl ima 010805.jpg
The discussion for deletion can be foundhere.
There are many reasons why this image should be restored. First of all, this was a bad faith nomination by the nominating user. I will not go into detail over that on this page. You can go here to see details over that. This means that this image shouldn't have been up for deletion to begin with. There was one vote in the discussion and the vote was strong keep. This image was properly labeled, properly attributed, and correctly used. I tagged this photo as coming from a press kit which is the case. The administrator that deleted the photo said I should go to one of his games to take the photo. How can I go to one of his soccer games to take a photo considering that I'm across the Atlantic Ocean and would have to take time off of school to do this and I am technically bankrupt. So that's not going to happen with me unless he's willing to buy me a plane ticket and a ticket to the game. Kingjeff 16:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiFur
The deletion debate is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WikiFur (2nd nomination) and I count 14 votes to delete and 10 votes to keep. That's only a 58% result in favor of deletion, which doesn't look like much of a consensus to me. Bryan 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I heard something about AfD not being a vote. Anyway... not really seeing any evidence this meets WP:WEB, the 1 media reference says it's just a mention, and the link is an error 404 anyway. I can only assume the AfD was closed as a delete due to this more or less, so endorse, looks like an okay close. --W.marsh 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean about the 404. Were you talking about this, or this?
- Even ignoring the numbers completely it still doesn't look like a consensus to me. There were lots of people on both sides of the debate and both groups declined to concede their main points of argument. Bryan 05:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The link given in the article was an error 404 for me... thanks for the link, but one mention in one source... that's not really meeting WP:WEB (and SA isn't very useful for verification purposes, being primarilly a satire site). It would be nice to hear something from the closer still, but getting X number of people to agree to something somewhere doesn't mean it's set in stone. If myself and several others had seen this AfD, we'd have voted delete... would there then be a consensus to delete just because we'd happened to show up? The idea that we should include some sites we really like even though they don't meet WP:WEB... well that's pretty basic bias, it's the exact same argument everyone uses when any random site they've heard of is nominated for deletion. --W.marsh 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- As mentioned below, I don't really believe that WP:WEB is a good idea. I think the quality of the article should be the sole criterion. We have no restriction on space. There is a limited number of editors for the purpose of fact-checking, but that's why I provided all the references. SA was being used as verification for the fact that SA had mentioned us, which seems fairly basic to me. As for consensus, I can't say what would have happened if you showed up, but I suspect we'd still have disagreed over using notability as a criteria for not having an article. GreenReaper 16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The link given in the article was an error 404 for me... thanks for the link, but one mention in one source... that's not really meeting WP:WEB (and SA isn't very useful for verification purposes, being primarilly a satire site). It would be nice to hear something from the closer still, but getting X number of people to agree to something somewhere doesn't mean it's set in stone. If myself and several others had seen this AfD, we'd have voted delete... would there then be a consensus to delete just because we'd happened to show up? The idea that we should include some sites we really like even though they don't meet WP:WEB... well that's pretty basic bias, it's the exact same argument everyone uses when any random site they've heard of is nominated for deletion. --W.marsh 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn the deletion. "AfD is not a vote" seems to be invoked these days as meaning "AfD is a discussion forum in which both sides attempt to persuade the closing admin; numbers are irrelevant". Here's the actual rule: "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached." (from Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus) I agree with Bryan that there was no such consensus here. JamesMLane t c 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- So it's not a vote, but it has to be closed like a vote... you should read the section you cite more carefully though, some arguments overule others. An argument was made that the topic didn't meet a key guideline, no one really bothered disproving that. --W.marsh 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- We weren't trying to disprove it. We knew that it did not meet the criteria specified in the guideline. Frankly, most furry communities tend to avoid media coverage, because it's been sensational in the past. Instead, we were arguing that the guideline should not be used as criteria for deletion in this particular circumstance, because the material was easily verified through other means. There did not appear to be any argument over OR or NPOV, the question was whether or not the material was verifiable or not. As the section says, those policies are key; the guidelines are not. GreenReaper 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds like special pleading. The best result is probably a link from furry fandom. That way you can document your history on your wiki, which works for YTMND. You can't assert that you are a notable web forum / site but only when not measured by the criteria we use to measure notability for web forums / sites, it just doesn't work that way. Guy 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's more like general pleading for there to be an option for editors to actually look at the article if the automatic criteria aren't met. Such articles should simply be subject to higher scrutiny for accuracy, and if there is doubt about a fact then the person who put it in should be required to prove it on the talk page to the satisfaction of the editors, just as for biographies. I disagree in principle with the idea of notability as a criteria for inclusion. I don't think the criteria you use to measure notability for web forums / sites are good, because they preclude articles that are entirely true and can be confirmed as such by any viewer. I do indeed think there should be a lot more such articles, not just WikiFur, because regardless of whether or not Misplaced Pages is intended for use as a web directory, people want to use it as such - indeed, they want to use it to look up everything - and I think it's better to give them something than nothing. GreenReaper 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Problem is, no one not involved with the site has any way of knowing that's true. An encyclopedia can't take quality assessments in relation to notability or anything else on the word of a site's creator. Miltopia 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's more like general pleading for there to be an option for editors to actually look at the article if the automatic criteria aren't met. Such articles should simply be subject to higher scrutiny for accuracy, and if there is doubt about a fact then the person who put it in should be required to prove it on the talk page to the satisfaction of the editors, just as for biographies. I disagree in principle with the idea of notability as a criteria for inclusion. I don't think the criteria you use to measure notability for web forums / sites are good, because they preclude articles that are entirely true and can be confirmed as such by any viewer. I do indeed think there should be a lot more such articles, not just WikiFur, because regardless of whether or not Misplaced Pages is intended for use as a web directory, people want to use it as such - indeed, they want to use it to look up everything - and I think it's better to give them something than nothing. GreenReaper 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds like special pleading. The best result is probably a link from furry fandom. That way you can document your history on your wiki, which works for YTMND. You can't assert that you are a notable web forum / site but only when not measured by the criteria we use to measure notability for web forums / sites, it just doesn't work that way. Guy 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- We weren't trying to disprove it. We knew that it did not meet the criteria specified in the guideline. Frankly, most furry communities tend to avoid media coverage, because it's been sensational in the past. Instead, we were arguing that the guideline should not be used as criteria for deletion in this particular circumstance, because the material was easily verified through other means. There did not appear to be any argument over OR or NPOV, the question was whether or not the material was verifiable or not. As the section says, those policies are key; the guidelines are not. GreenReaper 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn, because none of them answered my question - what information was in the article that was not verifiable. All but one of the votes for delete were based on notability criteria. The objective of notability is to try to ensure that an article is verifiable. I don't think it should be the only way to do that. The stated objective of third-party coverage is because Wikipedians are not generally qualified to confirm facts, but I don't see what facts they couldn't confirm themselves in this particular case.
- When constructing the article, I was careful to say only those things that I felt could be said without a doubt from the sources available to me, and which I felt could also be seen by the average Wikipedian from the references given. No, it does not meet the guideline criteria of WP:WEB. But I submit that there are at least 24 people who read the article and looked at the references, and none of them claimed that any of it was actually wrong. Is having an article that's easily confirmed to be true from the references but just hasn't been written about much elsewhere really that much of a problem? I think Misplaced Pages is better with such articles than without them. GreenReaper 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn. In addition to what's been mentioned, and the project's status as one of the larger and more active wikis, I'm given to understand that a paper on its creation was presented at Wikimania 2006. That would seem to me to be a reliable source, though it might well have gone unremarked in the mainstream press. Shimeru 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is something that may not have been considered by the early voters - one reference I added during the AfD process was to A Tale of Two Wikis, a paper I wrote about the process of creating and building up WikiFur and which was presented at Wikimania 2006. I'm not sure if the Wikimania conference committee counts as verifiable, but they are my peers and they did decide that it was a worthy topic. Indeed, it got a small amount of attention on its own in The Phoenix (see "Day 2." on that page), and in Polish Wikinews. GreenReaper 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion for now - Looks like it fails WP:V still, one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages. I'm inclined to not consider Wikimania internal coverage to be independent of the subject. If anyone can provide something more substantial than the Phoenix article, I'll gladly turn this around. Wickethewok 07:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can give you furry fandom coverage of it which would provide some measure of its notability within the fandom. For example, Califur (Californian furry convention) seems to think we're a reliable source for its history, and Fur Affinity (second biggest furry art site) has considered us good enough to put a link to us on their front page for the last six months (to my knowledge, none of the people involved in either site is an admin on WikiFur). For that matter, we're the first link on the furry fandom article itself, and I know I didn't put us in that position, and nobody seems to be complaining about it.
- I am however not sure I can provide what you would consider "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," because I don't know if you'd consider anything within the fandom itself reliable to that level. Most of the fandom communicates online through forums, chats, and LiveJournal and other blogs. People make comments like this, this and this quite often, but they don't carry the weight of a news report. But what can you do when the closest thing to a news service is PHP-Nuke boards? We're a subculture, and when the cameras do roll they're too busy focusing on the fursuits to care about an encyclopedia. We've have several furry experts involved since the beginning, but the only way you could confirm them as experts would be to look at what they have done within the fandom - and of course, the best record you have for that is their personal sites and Wikifur, because no biographer has covered their lives. GreenReaper 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's great, but Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. There's this out of control trend that for every single pop culture phenomenon or subculture phenomenon - be it a TV show, a video game, or dressing up in costumes or whatever - that someone gets the idea that Misplaced Pages should have a separate article on each of the top 10 or whatever fan websites about the phenomenon. These articles typically go: "This website was founded in 200? to celebrate X cultural phenomenon thing. It is one of the most popular X websites out there. Here is a list of the 4 forums and 12 sub forums on the site. It has been a featured link on these other websites. Here are some fun things forum members like to get up to.". This not encyclopedic content, its stuff for a web directory. It's fine if these sites are external links on the main subject articles but having separate articles for external links themselves needs greater justification Bwithh 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
- All I can really suggest that would be of general interest rather than furry interest is that WikiFur has been notably successful as a wiki, given the size of the community it serves (as compared to other fan groups, which have literally millions of fans out there), and that this is due in part to the actions taken in advertising and promoting the wiki, and to other factors such as the unlooked-for "promotion" from other sites, which relates in part to the topic. I know there's quite a bit that could be written about how that was done - I've already written it, after all. The trouble with that is that it runs the risk of being both original research (given the feeling that Wikimania publication is not sufficiently third-party) and potentially NPOV (since I am largely responsible for said promotion and advertising, and could be overstating the effect it's had). GreenReaper 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's great, but Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. There's this out of control trend that for every single pop culture phenomenon or subculture phenomenon - be it a TV show, a video game, or dressing up in costumes or whatever - that someone gets the idea that Misplaced Pages should have a separate article on each of the top 10 or whatever fan websites about the phenomenon. These articles typically go: "This website was founded in 200? to celebrate X cultural phenomenon thing. It is one of the most popular X websites out there. Here is a list of the 4 forums and 12 sub forums on the site. It has been a featured link on these other websites. Here are some fun things forum members like to get up to.". This not encyclopedic content, its stuff for a web directory. It's fine if these sites are external links on the main subject articles but having separate articles for external links themselves needs greater justification Bwithh 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
- Endorse deletion Well-judged decision by closing admin. Lack of clear vote consensus does not overrule failure of WP:V, which the article fails. Plus, I don't see any arguments for encyclopedic notability from the keep voters - just a general sense that Misplaced Pages should be treated as a web directory rather than an encyclopedia, and the suggestion that if there's an article on this other fanwiki, why not this one; plus the idea that being featured on the Something Awful forum for a day merits an article etc. So even going by just weighing the vote comments, the delete votes are clearly framing their arguments within policies and guidelines, while the keep comments do not seem to be Bwithh 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, fails WP:V. Wikia and papers presented at a con do not constitute reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nor do any of the links presented apart from The Phoenix, which is a passing mention. "But what can you do when the closest thing to a news service is PHP-Nuke boards?" - the answer is realise that little about the 'subculture' apart from its existence hasn't attracted mainstream attention and doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we'll just have to work towards changing that. See you in five years. :-) GreenReaper 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, lack of substantive verifiability of anything much beyond mere existence, from any source even approaching reliable, means that we cannot ensure neutrality; since the last is non-negotiable we can't have an article. Sorry. Procedurally we should probably never have had the article in the first place, it was speedied in August 2005, deleted by consensus in September 2005, unilaterally recreated by Pookey (talk · contribs) at Wikifur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in Feb 2006 and moved to WikiFur the same day. Guy 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse per the first AFD debate. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I too endorse (see below) but I just wanna point out that the first version was, as is my understanding, deleted because it was significantly less notable at the time. It's more so now. Also, it was more spamming and less encyclopedic during the first deletion debate or whatever it's called. Miltopia 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I myself voted delete that time, because it was a bad article, the site was still not well known within the fandom, and it hadn't yet got to what I'd call a "stable state". GreenReaper 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I too endorse (see below) but I just wanna point out that the first version was, as is my understanding, deleted because it was significantly less notable at the time. It's more so now. Also, it was more spamming and less encyclopedic during the first deletion debate or whatever it's called. Miltopia 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, most of the "keep" votes pointed to notability among the furry fandom, not notability as a whole. I think "notability" is a pretty ridiculous guideline here in the first place, "relative" notability is definitely a defunct reason for keeping. There are already so few legit articles in Category:Furry already that WikiFur is not really up to par. I mean, the furry fandom in itself is of pretty small notability anyway, you don't hear about it much off the internet. If I were more experienced here I'd probably nominate many Category:Furry articles for deletion myself. People who are Misplaced Pages vterans: I encourage all of you to go through that category and delete as needed. Miltopia 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Redeemer (album)
An album for a band, Machinae Supremacy signed to a major record label set for release soon . It was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G11. However, it was hard to get a proper reason why he considered it spam out of the mod who deleted it. I'd like to see this overturned, or at least give it a chance listed, as I cirtainly feel it shouldn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. ¬rehevkor¬ 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Tse Chi-yung
AFDs:
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tse Chi-yung
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tse Chi-yung (2nd nomination)
Person in question has recently gained publicity due to recent employment by Google. Covered by multiple local press: . See also and . John Seward 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion From what I can find in English sources, this is a 24-year-old who just got a job as a software engineer with Google. I'm sure his family (and apparently his school) are very proud of him, but I don't see the local press references as non-trivial. Do you have any idea how many software engineers work for Google? Fan-1967 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)