Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBaum's World controversies

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 of the debate was Merged. There have been serious complaints to Wikipedia about the unsourced statements in this article, so for the time being I have redirected it to the eBaum's World article and will be merging in verifiable information from the controversy article. This may take some time; help appreciated. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EBaum's World controversies

Appears to be a long rant criticizing a specific website. An analysis of EBaum's World indicates that this page was created specifically because of concerns that criticism was overwhelming the rest of the article and violating neutrality; i.e. it was a POV fork. Furthermore, this website simply isn't notable enough to deserve two separate pages. "Criticism of" articles are possibly a necessary evil when dealing with huge, widely-criticized entities like Wal-Mart or Microsoft. But run-of-the-mill websites? No. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge back into the main article. - Randwicked Alex B 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Randwicked -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, because the controversy does exist, in spades, and eBaum's World is not a run-of-the-mill website. That would almost be like calling McDonald's a "local diner". Do not merge. The article as it was before was made up predominantly of eBaum's World criticism, so much that it deserves to be separated into its own entry. --Antrophica 10:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been on the Internet since 1995 and have never *heard* of this website before seeing this article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment But many others have. --Antrophica 04:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep, preferrably Keep. This made reading the original artical's much better, and I doubt something almost getting its own TV show 'ordinary'. Hell, it'll be more fuel to the fire, and then we'll really need this page. Kobayen 14:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into EBaum's World then delete. Ifnord 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Even if entirely cut & pasted back into the main article, the main wouldn't be so long as to justify breaking this section out as a subarticle. Kaisershatner 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be a shame to lose any of the text, but merging it in its entirety would severely imbalance the main article. I think the main article could do with a longer summary, though. --Malthusian (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Last_Malthusian —the preceding unsigned comment is by Where (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Last_Malthusian 68.196.180.250 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Last_Malthusian. --Aaron 19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into EBaum's World then delete. TITROTU 2:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You must be taking the piss. Strong Keep. - Ferret 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No personal attacks, please -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • "You must be taking the piss" is not a personal attack. It is a slightly stronger wording of "You are wrong". If we can't say 'You are wrong', Wikipedia is dead, and if we can't use strong wording now and again, the dispute resolution process will be flooded with spurious 'offences' and Wikipedia is equally dead. --Malthusian (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I'm an ignorant American and have never in my life heard that phrase before. With the word piss being a one of the "dirty seven," I made an assumption. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merge back to EBaum's World. Not sufficiently notable for an article of it's own (and it's not as though the parent article is too long). Def keep the info though. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious POV fork, Merge back into EBaum's world. Can keep redirect to avoid work of merging histories. Protect redirect if necessary to prevent re-creation. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete You could fill half the internet with complaints and rants about EBaum. Making a random selection of those rants and complaints into a Wikipedia article, or a merged part of an article, doesn't make sense. The artidcle about EBaum's World covers the facts, and there's no need for this "controversies" article.KarlBunker 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into EBaum's World. The "controversies" article does refer to real-life legal issues, not just childish spats on Internet content. Controversies and legal issues are contained throughout the Microsoft and Google entries, so there's no reason why these issues can't be contained in the main article. --Tokachu 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Last Malthusian is correct. Unfortunately due to Ebaum's policies there's simply far more negative information available about eBaum's World than positive. The information in this article is accurate, but if the main article consists of over half information regarding the controversies, it will be considered a violation of NPOV. Better to link to the controversy section on the main article and have it all available here, while maintaining a balance in the main article. --71.137.147.161 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a worse violation of neutrality to have an article that contains only negative information. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ridiculous. This was already argued over at the talk page for the main article. NPOV doesn't mean balancing the good and the bad. It's presenting all of the facts without resorting to opinion. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that there is no positive information is clearly the fault of the subject and not the editors. 'NPOV' stands for Neutral Point Of View, not No Point Of View. --Malthusian (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand why there's any objection to a merge. If it's neutral to have some kind of "balance" of information in the main article, fine. If it's neutral to have criticism predominate, fine. But this can and should all be done in the main article. It sounds from what I read above that this article was broken off precisely to sidestep reaching consensus on neutrality, by letting each of two sets of editors go their separate ways. That's a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If this is about two sets of editors going their separate ways, where's Praise for EBaum's World? Tell me when that link turns blue and I'll create Praise for being massaged with a cheese grater. --Malthusian (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this argument. Is every bad point on Hitler backed by a good one? Is Hitler POV? Rsynnott 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Oh my God, are you serious? User:Crotalus_horridus where's the check from eBaum's World? eBaum's World is infamous. You should lose AfD privs for this nonsense. Agree as per User:Last_Malthusian that the main article for eBaum's World could do with a longer summary. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it civil, please. —rodii 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't devaluate WP:CIVIL by citing it where no-one could possibly take offence at a comment in good faith. --Malthusian (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry Rodii, on second reading I think you were justified there. --Malthusian (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Malthusian. —rodii 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. important issues concerning a website. Ebaum's World has made serious conflicts with Viacom --143.200.225.101 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: While some of the sections are essentially fully written by me, they are accurate and sources are cited. Especially with eBaum's recent foray into television, it is worthwhile for Wikipedia to maintain a factually correct entry on this topic for interpretation by a wider audience. Bilious 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge: eBaumsworld is a widely controversial topic on the internet. Particularly on large internet media sites such as YTMND, SA, Newgrounds and even 4chan. The community of these websites and their forums have taken a general consensus of mild despisal of eBaum's practices since eBaums conducted their first DDoS attacks on SA and even mildly before. When the flash animation : eBaums world dot com appeared on newgrounds on Nov. 6th 2005 the controversy really flew off. Much of the content being hosted on eBaums was seen as stolen and posted up by the forum members of eBaums, which was then considered by the consensus of eBaums as freely available and held a philosophy of a copyright free internet, where the content could be taken, profited from and used on any website in the internet. Particularly eBaums. This article is incredibly important to the understanding of how much eBaums is despised by a large portion of the internet population. To say that their despisal is inexistant is wholly untrue. This article is incredibly important whether it be seperate or merged with the original, since I hold a stance against eBaums I won't edit the controversies page, but I do however think that it's incredibly important that this page exists.--Mofomojo 10:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete eBaum stuff is just a fad... I doubt it will last. Jwissick(t)(c) 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A fad that has lasted for two years on end, at least, I might add. --Antrophica 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep description of a major recent cultural phenomenon. Main article would be unwieldy in a merge. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could use some work, but I can see that it's important enough to stay. Dan 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into eBaum's World. Valuable information, but it doesn't quite warrant its own article. It'd beef up the eBaum article too. ShadowMan1od 05:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NPOV criteria not to have controversies take up most of the article. Calwatch 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back to eBaum's World. There would seem to be a bit of an attempt at a cover-up going on there currently. Rsynnott 11:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. 88.107.223.90 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article could do with a better introduction though. RicDod 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. Doesn't need its own. Dbinder 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because the controversy is real and deserving of its own article. 209.51.77.64 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Forum-cruft/webcruft/cruftcruft. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. Why in the hell was it ever split off from the orginal? That's just silly talk --DariusMDeV 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it was cluttering up the main Ebaums page but the controversies are worth documenting. - Achristl 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cos its interesting, informative, reasonably well-written but instead cite more sources of where information is coming. -- Paxomen 02:57, 30 January 2006 (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.