Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifiddler

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 Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifiddler

• Delete. This is a neologism created by Andrew Orlowski of The Register. It is not Wikipedia's job to help perpetuate invented words or carry dictionary defitions. 69.236.184.108 04:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article clearly is not a dictionary definition, have you ever looked at a dictionary and found something like this article in it? It describes Orlowski and others' criticisms of Wikipedia. --DannyWilde 04:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia belongs in Criticism of Wikipedia. This should not be used as a one-man platform to put down Wikipedia, either. 69.236.184.108 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• We get "points" for making edits now? Drek, I must have like a qzillion by now. --Agamemnon2 08:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant material into Criticism of Wikipedia. The article itself admits that "According to the results of Google searches, Orlowski's term wikifiddler has not achieved widespread currency beyond its originator." -- Saikiri~ 05:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism used by an obscure British journalist. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Orlovski is not obscure. Merge to CoW. rodii 15:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete limited-use neologism/epithet. WP:NOT a soapbox for propaganda, including the Register's. Gazpacho 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly merge content to CoW. That's where this needs to be. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 05:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hardly significant, and one of the times I believe that it's an inappropriate self-reference to ourselves. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- time to bring out my old war cry: this is Wikipedia, not Wikimadeupwords. Reyk 06:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

*Delete or merge into CoW. IMO this article violate WP:No personal attacks since it expounds in great detail on a pejorative term for editors. It is ridiculous to expect WP to contain attacks on its members couched in such terms.Herostratus 07:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep. Changing my vote on appeal. It's a reasonable term, it's a well-written article, and we don't need to have thin skins. Since an editor cares enough about the article to appeal, keep it. Herostratus 01:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This word has become much more widespread since May; it is no longer the case that its use is confined to Orlowski's articles and those quoting them.— JEREMY 07:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 09:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please give a reason. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. DannyWilde 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I feel that a term used for Wikipedia editors by a single magazine, possibly even a single journalist in that magazine, is a neologism and thus does not deserve a Wikipedia article. — JIP | Talk 10:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough; is that grounds to delete it? I suggest merging it and redirecting to the appropriate page would be a better response. DannyWilde 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 15:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please give a reason. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. DannyWilde 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You are aware that "<Action> per <username>" means "I support <Action> for the reasons already explicated by <username>", right? Someone who says "Delete per nominator" has given the reason for their vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I've already responded to the nominator's criticisms. I'm sure the article is not a dictionary definition. Several people obviously agree with the nominator's point about the title of the article being a neologism, but deleting an article on the basis of its title alone is not acceptable, and the contents of the article describe Orlowski's criticisms of Wikipedia editors. Apart from anything else, a very strong justification for the contents of the article is that Orlowski's criticisms are spot on. I'm pretty sure Orlowski has some experience editing Wikipedia, and maybe he has even been through "Articles for Deletion" a few times. So many people lining up to try to delete this article, when a similar neologism, Googlewashing, also by Orlowski, but never subjected to deletion votes, seems to me to show how on target Orlowski's criticisms are. This vote for deletion is like one of those puffs of smoke coming out of Saddam's bunkers after the cruise missile has just flown in through the chimney. What people inside the Wikipedia "group" don't realise is that, by showing how the criticisms have hit home, and deleting the article, it is a kind of victory for the critics. I don't expect to win friends here on Wikipedia by saying so, but taking the up-front policy, refusing to censor criticism, and keeping the article here on Wikipedia, is in practice the best antidote to Orlowski's criticisms. For myself I also feel that the current "shocking" title is the best one, but if others have a better suggestion, please respond on the talk page of the article itself. Thank you to all participants in this discussion for sharing their views. DannyWilde 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The only argument I've seen about why this isn't a dictionary definition isn't that you wouldn't find a dictionary that would choose to cover this word. That's not exactly the point of the rule against dicdefs. You state that deleting an article on the basis of its title alone is not acceptable, but you fail to address the more salient point, which is that if it was under the non-neologistic title Andrew Orlowski's criticisms of Wikipedia would anyone see any reason for such an article separate from Criticism of Wikipedia to exist in the first place? You are correct that the article describes Orlowski's criticisms of Wikipedia editors, including that they are "spotty teenagers", but we have a Criticism of Wikipedia article already, where we can decide whether allegations that Wikipedia editors have acne are significant instances of that subject. As for the fact that Googlewashing has not been nominated for deletion yet and that supposedly proves bias, BS. There's a lot of outright vandalistic articles that fly under the radar for a long time before they get spotted. You're trying to argue that the same editors who are voting to delete Orlowski's neologism Wikifiddler and its associated existential fallacy must have seen Googlewashing and said "Oh, that's okay then!" thus proving a bias; the problem with this assumption is that if you actually looked at Googlewashing you must have seen that the article was created in two edits by a single person and that no one has ever edited the talk page; in short, there is precious little evidence that the people you're accusing even knew of the page's existence, let alone applying a double standard to it. The rest of your arguments amount to "If we don't allow Wikipedia to become a platform for Orlowski's insulting personal attacks on Wikipedia and its editors, it'll prove that Wikipedia is biased." Again, I say that's BS, and all the flimsy analogies about "this is somehow like a puff of smoke; there, I've proved my point!" won't change the actual facts, which is that Wikipedia is not obligated to keep articles on any journalist's neologisms invented to encapsulate a personal attack, not when those neologisms have failed to meet vital standards such as actual notability. The fate of this article should be the same as Internet Shell Shock -- deletion. To claim that we must keep it, because we are the target of the attack? That is the double standard. Oh. And one last thing. When you notice that there's a debate going on which will decide whether an article will be deleted or not, and whether its content will be deleted or merged elsewhere? Pre-emptively merging the entire content verbatim into a different article does not demonstrate good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Moveor Merge (title isn't great), but keep the information in this article: either merge to Criticism of Wikipedia or move to somewhere in the Wikipedia: namespace. Don't delete interesting information about outside views of Wikipedia. WP should collect and document all attacks against WP. Kusma (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I also believe the information contained in this article can be useful for general users as well as editors, so I oppose deleting it. I also oppose merger to Criticism of Wikipedia since that article focuses on criticisms of Wikipedia and this is more like an attack. (The contents of this article are a lot more specific than a general criticism. The attack also focuses more on Wikipedians rather than Wikipedia in general.) Perhaps a new article named Attacks on Wikipedia should be created? In any case, I favor keeping the article the way it is. Aucaman 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe Attacks on Wikipedia could be construed to sound slightly POV, but it would be a better title than Wikifiddler. Until somebody finds a better title, I support a move to Attacks on Wikipedia. I still strongly oppose outright deletion. Kusma (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks like an expansion of this article into a broader article documenting various attacks on Wikipedia could create some controversy (for one thing, it is not within Wikipedia's interest to be circulating [otherwise dead] attacks on itself). Whatever outcome of that controversy, I think this article need to stay the way it is (since it is very detailed, specific, and potentially useful). Aucaman 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• It looks like a fair amount of the content is also included on Andrew Orlowski; perhaps that would be a better place for the page, since it seems to be mostly his term only? JD 12:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, someone could move the relevant criticism parts to somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace (although I'd think they are there already), but the article by itself is about a neologism that's not in wide use. Most of this article is just filler from references that don't mention a wikifiddler in any way. - Bobet 15:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The contents of the article did not exist elsewhere at the time of the deletion suggestion.
2. The article is not about a neologism, it is about Orlowski's criticisms (ridicule) of Wikipedia.
3. Most of the quotes in the article are from Orlowski's articles, which do mention Wiki-fiddler, and the other ones are from articles Orlowski uses to support his point of view. All of them are relevant to the points being made.

--DannyWilde 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment, I agree with some of the criticisms in the article, but the term Wikifiddler isn't encyclopedic (neologism, not in wide use) and is self-referential. Some of Orlowski's criticisms are already up at Wikipedia:Criticisms, maybe you could move the core of this there? - Bobet 12:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please give a reason. From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

    Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. DannyWilde 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge a summary to Criticism of Wikipedia and NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The term seems to be gaining currency, I've found it used in several places other than here and The Register. It's too new, as yet, to be in a dictionary, and it's very relevant to Wikipedia editors. Most of whom, it seems to me, suffer a sense of humor failure when criticised. Relevance, btw, of Orlowski's being British as mentioned earlier? This vote is 82.153.222.158 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.
  • Ah, I see, he's British... so when he calls Wikipedia editors "pedia-philes" he's hoping confused British vigilante mobs will burn our houses down? Hate to tell you this, but "too new, as yet, to be in a dictionary" is not an argument for keeping the article; Wikipedia tries to avoid neologisms. Neither is it an argument for keeping it that it insults Wikipedians and therefore tests our sense of humor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very obvious neologism. I doubt if even Wiktionary would accept this, and this is very obvious dicdef. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• On checking What links here I notice that Wiki-fiddler was deleted in May 2005. It is a similar article to this although not as detailed I would be grateful if you could have a look at it as to whether it is a Speedy Delete as a recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I was contacted about this because DannyWilde seems to be including the whole article in Andrew Orlowski. Because the AfD is still active, and there is no consensus to keep or merge, such an inclusion constitutes circumvention of AfD. The Andrew Orlowski article should be kept as it is until this AfD discussion has closed. — JIP | Talk 05:35, 9 December 2005 (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.