Talk:Athletics Nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Move to Athletics Nation? 2 AfD result 3 Pathetics Nation. 3.1 Hi 4 Mediation still active?

[edit] Move to Athletics Nation?

Per the AfD discussion, I thought I'd see what people have to say about possibly moving this article to Athletics Nation. Thoughts? --Alan Au 08:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• That would be more appropriate, due to this individual not having any notability outside of the blog. Wickethewok 08:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A move to Athletics Nation would make sense. But if you're using the "notoriety outside of blog" as a test of suitiblity for Wikipedia, then Charles Johnson (blogger) should be deleted under this criteria because he has no notablity outside of Little Green Footballs. Dspserpico 08:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on April 3, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

JIP | Talk 11:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathetics Nation.

Kgg, that blog is not notable enough or of a high enough standard for inclusion. Please stop putting it back in. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-03t14:49z

I disagree. Pathetics Nation has mentioned dozens of times on the Athletics Nation blog itself. --Kgg 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-05 Athletics Nation. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-05t08:11z

[edit] Hi

Hi - I'm here to help you reach an amicable solution to your problem. Since there's a dispute, I recommend that we look to the applicable guideline (in this case WP:WEB) to help us reach a solution. Now, there are two things that we need to say about WP:WEB in this situation. Firstly, it's just a guideline, so while we should follow its spirit, we don't need to stick to the letter of the law. Secondly, it is a guideline for what is notable to the extent of having its own article, rather than being included in an "external links". Because of this, we can be fairly flexable with its application. However, I think that for it to be included in the links section, some evidence must be produced to show that Pathetics Nation satisfies at least part of WP:WEB. Does that sound reasonable? --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:External links "there are exceptions" to linking to blogs "such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."

While PA is closely related, I don't think it's notable enough or of a particularly high standard. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-06t08:32z

I'm not even sure how related PN is to AN anyway, since it's basically just a pretty non-notable parody of the site. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pathetics Nation is highly notable and very well known amongst the Athletics Nation community (of which I am a member) because it parodies everything our community does. It may not be particularly well-known outside of the Athletics Nation community, but then, AN itself is not particularly well-known outside of the larger (though still small) community of Oakland A's fans in general. Therefore, if AN is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, surely Pathetics Nation (a regular topic of discussion at AN) is worthy of mention within the AN Wikipedia entry. Pathetics Nation certainly isn't well-known enough to justiry its own Wikipedia entry (not now, anyway), but it definitely has its a place in the AN entry. --Kgg 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please link to some of the discussions at AN. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-07t18:52z

Difficult to do, as the discussions at AN are moderated heavily, and any mention of Pathetics Nation is usually deleted (and the users warned or banned). That said, there are several mentions of Pathetics Nation that have slipped through the cracks, and can be found in archived links on Google. --Kgg 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not an allowed topic at AN, and it's not notable enough on its own, it shouldn't go into the AN article. If a verifiable reliable source like the NYT however writes about PN in relation to AN we could then have a paragraph and link to PN. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-08t08:21z

Kgg is NOT a member of Athletics Nation. Kgg is in fact a banned member of the community. Athletics Nation receives 12,000+ visits a day and has had almost 5 million visitors since it was created and 18 million page views. Pathetics Nation receives basically no visits a day (http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm1patheticsnation), and the ones they do get are mostly from the blog's owner and other people banned from the site. The Athletics Nation blog's owner has been featured in Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, Wired Magazine and has exclusive, original interviews with the Oakland Athletics owner, general manager, players and broadcast personalities. There also has been no regular discussion of Pathetics Nation on Athletics Nation. That is a an out and out lie. As a matter of fact, there is no links on Athletics Nation that would even indicate the existence of such a blog. I suggest reading some of the comments on Pathetics Nation if you want to get a feel as to what it's really about: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13178916&postID=115430229726660466 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ima Loser (talk • contribs) .

Interesting that the person making the comment above states that "Kgg is in fact a banned member" of AN, when in fact he or she has no idea who I really am. (For the record, though, my AN username is not "Kgg," nor is "Kgg" a banned member of AN, nor is "Kgg" a member of Pathetics Nation.) The person making the comment above simply doesn't like the fact that Pathetics Nation parodies (in a very vicious, mean-spirited way) AN. Nor do I. But the fact remains, it is a valid parody of AN, and protected by the First Amendment and Fair Use legistlation. If the person above wishes to question my integrity, he or she could at least have the decency to sign his or her name when making such comments. --Kgg 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kgg, please stop putting in links to Pathetics Nation until you prove that the site is worthy of inclusion. To Wikipedia it appears like nothing but a vitriolic attempt at revenge and not worthy of mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ima Loser (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your name so I know who it is who claims to speak for all of Wikipedia. --Kgg 04:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ima Loser, please add ~~~~ at the end of messages to "sign" edits.

Kgg, the burden does lie with whoever adds the paragraph/link to show it's notability. Please stop reverting the removal, or I'll request a page lock, and user block.

Both of you please go read WP:3RR and note that "In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.". -- Jeandré, 2006-08-08t08:21z

As he says. Just because you have not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hrs doesn't mean that your edit warring is not disruptive. 3 reverts in 24 hours is an absolute limit, not an entitlement. --David Mestel^(Talk) 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Stephen Colbert was right. --Kgg 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation still active?

Does this discussion still require mediation? --Ideogram 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing mediation. If it needs to be reopened, leave a note on my talkpage. --Ideogram 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)