Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. If someone else really wants to put this into the project namespace, I guess you could, but, honestly, we can do without this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion gestapo

Deletion gestapo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A quick search engine test reveals only five results. This subject is clearly non-notable. Juansidious 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Juansidious - did you read the article? It refers to people who want to delete "anything that can’t be validated using the first four hits from a one-word search on Google"[1] - which is precisely what you did! Moreover, there are more references than just web pages. See also Wikipedia policy on notability --GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚
      • If you look through those five hits only one passes Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and that's a really trivial mention. The results aren't any better if you try searching for "deletion Nazi" instead. The notability criteria are not satisfied. Hut 8.5 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move I'm not an expert on what the different spaces are called/do, but strikes me this is an essay about wikipedia. It's not necessarily bad, and shows some knowledge of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Move it to where the other essays live, or the user's own pages.Merkinsmum 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most essays are either in the Wikipedia: or User: namespace. This one, if moved, would probably do best as a user subpage of the author's. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete (Oh, the irony!). Full of WP:NOR, possibly created by a disgruntled editor to make a point, although the point may be worth making, if reliable sources could be found, but they don't seem to be, the NYTimes one isn't about deletionism, and the Telegraph one is a blog. Only one thing for it... send in the Gestapo! Crazysuit 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets' That would be my blog on the Telegraph's website, then. Mind you, I hadn't heard the term until I found a trackback to the article.Douglasi 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (preferred) or at very least userfy. Seems to be calling all deletionists Nazis... sources are largely unreliable, trivial, or on Wikipedia itself. Once you get past the POV information, it does provide a fairly decent summary of Deletion ins and outs, though (the one redeeming feature). Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to project space it is an interesting piece and may be usefull to some wikipedians but is not notable enough for an article. -Icewedge 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was torn about this, because I think there's a good point in the kernel of the article, but I think the article falls squarely under Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is not the way to achieve consensus among editors -- this is gaming the system. Accounting4Taste 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Patent nonsense essay. Keb25 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Make it a Wikiproject - Call it Deletion Resistance. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete cleaned up it might be of minor interest to some in the project space, but utterly irrelevant here --Xorkl000 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only reliable source mentioning the 'deletion gestapo' is this, and even then it is a quote within a quote. J Milburn 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this term is hardly used at all, and is not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. Might be OK as a userspace essay. Hut 8.5 12:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic and non-notable (oh the irony etc) --carelesshx talk 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Send to extermination camp I am now a member of both the Deletion Gestapo and of the Article Rescue Squadron. --Victor falk 13:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Holocaust "Humour" is both in extremely poor taste and completely unnecessary for this discussion. Please be sensitive. --Xorkl000 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Send to extermination camp, Arbitrary pardon à la Amon Goeth That is the vote I actually wanted to cast from the beginning, I definetely believe this belongs somewhere on wikipedia, just not on the main page; but I couldn't resist the irony (:.
Other wise, I'd like to point out that the more you were into morbid and black humour, the more you were likely to survive concentration camps. Cf Solzhenitsyn (esp. The Gulag Archipelago and A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich), Imre Kertész, Elie Wiesel et al. --Victor falk 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been known to try to inject humor into my votes (and occasionally get berated for it), but this goes over the line IMO. Clarityfiend 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum --Victor falk 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Translation: "One musn't quarrel about tastes and colours" to those who are curious about the term. My comment "it is easy to laugh until it happens to you" --Lenticel (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Like all classical quotes, there is much more to them than just a translation: [1]--Victor falk 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Should it happen to you laugh at it even more.--Victor falk 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A neutral article could be written, but this one flunks the neutrality test just on the title alone. Having one's creation deleted is a natural consequence of having a "free encylopedia that anyone can edit". That type of freedom to add and subtract is what comes with the concept of a "wiki". I can't vote "keep" or "delete" on this one, since it could be fixed, and wikipedia is one of the notable developments of the first decade of this century. Ten years ago, people didn't have the expectation that their writing could be "published" without prior approval; hence, they never got to the part of being frustrated when something they had posted was taken back down. That said, however, I'm an inclusionist and I would never think of describing any of my deletionist friends to Nazis. Mandsford 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment regarding COMMENT - It "flunks the neutrality test just on the title alone" because it explains the origin of the epithets! Should we consider the faggot article to flunk the NPOV test on the title alone? What about The Soup Nazi? Or Eurotrash, Wop, or spic? --GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
      • HELP! Why did my above comment get appended with "...Preceding unsigned comment..." -- I put three tildes at the end! It has done this before. If anybody knows why it is doing that please let me know. Preparing to add three tildes to this comment... GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Because its four ~~~~. Viperix 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
          • D'oh!! How stupid of me. I've been away from WP for weeks, in Germany. I think the beer erased one tilde! GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
  • 'Userify as it's OR and non-encyc. It could be an essay after ruthless editing. Alternately, delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete mein fuhrer! Though I could see a broader article on deletionists maybe having a place in wikipedia, if that's not too meta. Artw 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced and well written. Oh and... the irony is palpable Bjrobinson 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Make into a Wiki-essay like Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. I was thinking of making a user sub-page for irresponsible deletionists (not all deletionist are irresponsible as some actually help improve the article rather than inventing a new -cruft word) but I think another disgruntled user has beat me to it. If made into such, can someone notify me in my talk page so I can improve it further? --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Either delete or wiki:-space it. There are some many terrible jokes possible here... humblefool® 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A more thorough look for published sources in another few months will probably find sufficient support for actual articles on discussions outside WP on WP policy questions. If other people think what we;'re doing is notable, when they write about it in the NYT and the chronicle and the several dozen other places where articles will appear, we're stuck with it. We may start to need rules on whether we can cite material appearing elsewhere as acceptable comment on our policy in these discussions. this may sound circular, but the courts frequently cite academic articles critiqueing their decisions--not a precedent, but as informative. DGG (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace as an essay. The article does illustrate some valid points about the deletion process and it is a bit humorous... --Hdt83 Chat 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I know already what is going to happen to this article. But I still must vote keep, (1) There are many, many, sources listed. The problem being all the "deletionists" will hate it because it rings very true, and therefore will draw a huge amount of delete votes. (2) The article is very well written and is as non-pov as you can get talking about a subject like this. No where in the article can you tell what the author thinks of the subject, IE he didn't write "those deletion gestapo are ruining everything!" or anything like that. And if the name suggests POV issues then so does, Christian or Democratic Party, or even just, gestapo. Viperix 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep convert to wiki essay, a plethora of sources are listed, definatly notable and I really see the irony that this has been tagged for rescue, and that the rescue tag is up for deletion. - Fosnez 10:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move to wikispace. Soapboxing has no place on Wikipedia, especially in article space, and synthesizing a bunch of unconnected sources is not carte blanche to make a big pointy essay about how angry you are something you wrote was unsuitable for Wikipedia. Utterly original research. Note I have removed the {{Rescue}} template from this article, as it is not a lack of references or a need for cleanup it is lacking. Neil ム 10:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Per the AfD process, articles that can be improved through regular editing should be before taking to AfD. I've re-added the {{Rescue}} template as tag is for AfDs that need improvement. I hope no one's suggesting that there is no way this article could ever be improved enough. Benjiboi 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I will suggest this article cannot be improved enough. One thing I have noticed time and time again is that mainspace is not for navel gazing. There is quite a bit navel gazing here. This article does not belong in the mainspace. Period. Furthermore, all it appears to do is to create hostility between users. I would consider myself a deletionist but those points do not even remotely identify what I believe in. Spryde 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources cited are either not reliable or only possibly arguably reliable at best. I'd be happy to review if an unambiguously reliable source (or better two) were added. Per my comments at the Essjay controversy AfD, just because we don't like what something says about us, doesn't mean we should exclude it if it passes our regular criteria. Note to all and none - detach from the emotion of the content and focus on the process. --Dweller 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nomination is badly reasoned, but even with sources this is basically a self-referential definition, and not an article at all. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this half hearted neogolism or Move to Deletion Nazis where the Deletionists can really go to town!. --Gavin Collins 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (not even bothering to vote at this point)... Reliable Sources? Check. Non-trivial Coverage? Check. WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Check. 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - I'm about as inclusionist as they come, but no. This is little more than a recasting of meta:Deletionism and meta:Deletionist in negative POV terms with a few gratuitous violations of Godwin's Law thrown in. It's an obvious self reference violation, cites 'sources' which are all Wikimedia project pages, blogs, or which don't use the terms they are supposedly supporting, and seems clearly meant to insult members of an opposing philosophy. The last thing we need are snide little articles like; Inclusion Trolls, Fair-use Bandits, BCE Heretics, Rogue Admins, and whatnot else. I'm tempted to speedy delete it as an attack page, but once something gets to AfD it is usually less disruptive to let it play out. That said, it would be a good thing if the involved parties agreed to dump this. --CBD 17:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A self reference sourced with blogs and more self referencing. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, over 30 references, and we shouldn't be afraid of or stifle criticism. I also would not be opposed to revising the article as an essay and maybe toning down the reference to "Nazis," if possible, as while I tend to agree with lots of deletionist efforts, comparisons to "Nazis" are a bit hyperbolic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To summarize, of 35 refs - 13 blog links, 2 Slashdot, 2 forums, 14 links to Wikimedia projects, 1 vague reference to a book, 3 New York Times (only 2 articles) that don't mention the topic. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Regarding #11, The WP article never inferred that the reference discussed "deletion" in particular; WP article used the citation for the term "revert war". Referenced article is about WP's "Anyone Can Edit" policy, and protection policies. Regarding #12, Somebody broke the link - now fixed. Not a blog, an article on MySpace & Wikipedia, by Mark Glaser: "Journalist, Critic, Facilitator, New Media Expert". [forgot to sign comments, signing now:] -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚
    • Comment - also, regarding #7, indeed does not mention "gestapo" etc, but discusses the delete wars with specific examples. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚
      • Number 7 does not describe any such thing. It describes deletion "discussions." The word "war" is not used in the body of the article at all. If anything it suggests deletion discussions are a lot more simple and pleasant (and quite silly) than they actually are. Mr.Z-man 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Make it a user or essay page, and change the horrible name which is insensitive. Gestapo is not a humorous name to those that lived then. Deletion police would be acceptable, I think. The article is improvable and the concept notable. Deletion should be the last resort, not the first. — Becksguy 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Userify I'm going to assume good faith, but I'm pretty close to classifying this as a WP:POINT violation. --Tango 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy - this is not a notable phenomenon outside of Wikipedia. You'd need a lot better sources to argue that it was. delldot talk 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Detailed consideration...
This is an interesting one. But it's also fairly self evident on a cursory check, how it goes at AFD. There are several issues:
  1. There is an expression, "Deletion Nazi/s". It is verifiable the expression has been coined or used.
  2. It is a neologism - that is, in simple terms, a slang expression coined for a specialized concept in some pop culture/s. Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (WP:NEO)
  3. Most neologisms do not get articles, and even well known ones are routinely discouraged in favor of wiktionary. There is a guideline on this: WP:NEO.
  4. It is used in typical places pop culture references occur - blogs, self-edited articles such as wiki's, etc. The majority are within Wikipedia itself. There appear to be very few serious references outside these. There are policies and guidelines, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS which between them require reliable sources sufficient to make a neutral article.
  5. The term is a form of "slang". That is, a street expression. Not every street expression, slang term, or the link, has an encyclopedia article. There is a policy for that: WP:NOT, and a guideline for notability in general, WP:N.
  6. Also on WP:N and WP:NOT, the expression does not seem to have gained more than tiny coverage. The expression seems mostly to relate to Wikipedia and kin and their subcultures at present.
  7. The term is intrinsically non-neutral. There may in theory be scope for an article on a different title, perhaps. But "Deletion Nazi" (disapproving slang for one stereotyped as a deleter) ranks with "Traitorous Democrats" (disapproving slang for one stereotyped as so pro-Democrat they would fail to defend the country) as an intrindically non-neutral term. It contains ingherent viewpoint. There is a policy on that, WP:NPOV. NPOV is "non-negotiable" on Wikipedia.
  8. There is also the concern that one should characterize, not re-enact, an article topic. That is, we do not just describe what one is. We show all sides of the argument. If the article were kept, it could not be kept in one-sided form. Sources would be needed that, without original research or synthesis could create a neutral encyclopedic article.

Conclusion.........
  • Delete 1/ WP:NEO is strongly involved here and states neologism articles are strongly discouraged, and "Articles on protologisms [recently emerged neologisms] are almost always deleted"; 2/ WP:NOT "not an indiscriminate collection of information. Collecting every newly emergent neologism would breach this; 3/ [has [WP:NOT]] and other policies require a certain degree of long term historical perspective, notable usage, etc. This expression is neither well defined (WP:NEO nor widely used. No good evidence has been provided that it has passed into common speech outside its own small circle. 4/ It is cruft (definition: of interest to fans and such only, limited or no general interest). If kept, in addition, WP:NPOV would require at the least a rename. But to my mind, WP:NEO, and then WP:NOT and WP:N, seem fairly conclusive at this time. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As originator of the article (yes, I take the blame, not necessarily credit), it did pain me to use pejorative (and non-PC!) terms to describe some WP contributors. I didn't coin the terms so please don't shoot the messenger (nobody has, so far, and I thank you). Edits here at WP are, by a vast majority, made in good faith and this Talk page is a stellar example of cooperation, consideration, and an almost total lack of any animosity or "Gestapo-ism". Nevertheless the frustrations of so many contributors (for example, expressed by Adam Megacz) needed to be aired. And, while the article may lean "left" (toward inclusionism) with an attempt at NPOV and showing both sides, this discussion page really leans the other way toward conservatism and deletionism, it seems? Yet, no honest, good faith vote for deletion is taken personally. Thank you all for your comments, inputs, and even some edits and improvements to the article itself. Sincerely. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
    • Mainspace is not the place to air the frustrations of contributors unless those frustrations are well documented by reliable secondary sources. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The concept, the neologisms, and (yes) the frustrations, are directly relevant to the crux of the article, providing (as many people discussing the concepts here agree) the origin of terms, the processes of discussion and deletion voting, and the reasons people would create such pejorative terms. And, an attempt at "well documented by reliable secondary sources" has been made; however, since the terms themselves and the discussions about deletionism are largely found on blogs and WP talk pages, there is a Catch-22, or a Heisenbergian catch. Here on this page, and other talk pages (both in blogs and on wikis) such discussions and terminologies are aired and invented. Some other references (NYTimes, books, journalists, and others) have been found and cited. "Self-reference" in the article (as some people claim) is unavoidable, if one wants to cite WP policies to describe reasons for deletion and inclusion. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
    • Gekritzl - What's this got to do with the article's inclusion? How an article comes to be, doesn't influence whether it has a place (nor should it). Your views on other editors, your feelings, and so on, whatever they are, aren't relevant to AFD. Non-neutral or non-encyclopedic information can easily be fixed. But the problem is, none of the above paragraph actually speaks to any policy-based reason why an article titled "Deletion Nazi's" might be viable. So it's unhelpful here. WP:NEO and other policies referenced were written knowing that neologisms would largely be excluded, and specifically aimed at that effect. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • FT2 - Thanks for your comments. The answer is simple: This type of article is unique. It's about blogs and WP talk pages, in essence, so WP policies stating that "citations to blogs" and so forth are not appropriate - are generally not applicable for any article that addresses exactly those forums. WP Policy also offers exceptions in that regard. Also, "non-encyclopedic" is somewhat subjective, and Wikipedia:Notability isn't as strict as most deletionists seem to believe. The other point is that it's not just about neologisms, but about social interoperation (whether cooperative or not) within the context of wikis and blogs. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
    • PS: Your comment about "[my] views on other editors, [my] feelings, and so on... aren't relevant to AFD" are inappropriate and are bent toward the exact thing that I was claiming did not exist on this talk page: personal attacks, and so forth. My comment that this talk page has been very civil had nothing to do with inclusionism of the article. It was simply a "thank you" to all who commented here, and a statement that votes for deletion are not taken personally. And, thank you, also, FT2, for your contributions. Please give contributors and commentors the benefit of the doubt. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
    • "Nevertheless the frustrations of so many contributors (for example, expressed by Adam Megacz) needed to be aired. And, while the article may lean 'left' (toward inclusionism) with an attempt at NPOV and showing both sides, this discussion page really leans the other way toward conservatism and deletionism, it seems?" - Essays and discussions in the Wikipedia, User, and/or various Talk namespaces are allowed to express (or 'lean' towards) a POV. Articles in the mainspace are not. The article namespace does not exist for, and cannot allow, 'airing frustrations'. Look at it this way; when you put something in article space it has to speak not for you, but for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself has to be neutral in disputes. It does not 'take sides'. If you want to 'air frustrations' do it in some other namespace - User, Wikipedia, and their respective Talk namespaces would all be appropriate... article space is not. --CBD 12:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, you state the obvious. The cathartic nature of contributing to Wikipedia is only secondary; the content itself is the prime issue. However, without the cathartic feelings it gives, nobody would EVER bother to contribute - there are no other benefits. This is an underlying point of the article. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
"Making a point" is not a valid reason for an article to exist either..... FT2 (Talk | email) 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Self referential, unencylopedic, and the attempts at categorizing this as a "real phenomenon" is about as believable as Apartheid in Korea. ^demon[omg plz] 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. ROxBo 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wonderful blog entry, has the advantage of using almost exclusively other blogs as "sources". Not an encyclopedia entry. OR, Synth, NEO. Should I mention one-sided POV or is that just so obvious from the title that it isn't necessary? I'm trying to picture a balanced article. Looks like sour grapes escalated into a rant to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to project namespace. This is an essay about Wikipedia, not an article, and should be placed as such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to project namespace. Good essay, but way too soapboxy and self-referential for the main namespace. JIP | Talk 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to wikipedia: namespace. This is an essay. WP:NOR all over and references back to Wikipedia should give it. At least a deletionist nazi says so -- Kl4m T C 19:30, 27 September 2007 (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.