Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Political Stew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep. The claims by Burmaduck are biased as he was banned from the forum and was involved in a near-legal fight with the current administration of the forum. I think this site is in line with paragraph 1 of the WP:WEB guidelines, as it is a collection of published material of whom the majority cites its sources in well known international broadcasting agencies such as Reuters and the BBC.

The following comments were refactored by me. Stifle (talk) 16

40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Burmaduck makes the claim that this is little more than self-promotion by the owner of the site the author of the entry does not own Political Stew any more than any other member. The author of the Wikipedia entry, who it is claimed is i_have_shiny_shoes (one of the two site administrators as per the entry itself) solely owns the domain name, does not own the site, and it has been their intention to move the ownership of the site to a non-profit company so no one person maintains overall control of the site. (Which would be a first for a privately operated forum)

Several persons contributing to the site are notable but their privacy must remain protected. One contributor is a journalist whose comments on the site are frequently in dispute with his own newspaper's editorial line, so no details can be disclosed of identities. Others include persons who have previously or currently work at the UN and major economic/political institutions, and whose opinions would be far more respectable in terms of politics due to the 'insider' nature of their jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)

• Comment How long the article has been in place before the AfD is not relevant. The motivations of Burmaduck are not relevant. If you have notable contributors, but can't tell us who they are, that has exactly zero value. The standards are clearly set out at WP:WEB. Fan1967 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. User privacy is strictly guarded in the terms and conditions of Political Stew. What policy does Wiki pursure regarding private disclosure from the notable member as confirmation.

• Comment An excellent policy, but it makes any claims about your notable contributors totally unverifiable. Fan1967 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Your contribution doesn't address what policy Wiki puruses regarding private disclosure from the notable member as confirmation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)

• Comment We have none. If the information isn't publicly verifiable, it's irrelevant. Try reading WP:V. - Fan1967 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No policy on a notable contributor writing in and confirming to you privately their additions to the site seems odd due to a desire to keep their own identities hidden from their employers, political parties, etc. Should be one perhaps?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment. No. All Wikipedia discussions and decisions are public, based on information freely available to all involved. That will not change. Fan1967 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I can't substantiate those claims at all. Searching Reuters and BBC for "Political Stew" garners 0 returned results. So, where is the evidence this meets WP:WEB's clause The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself...?--Isotope23 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not the same Burmaduck as the aformentioned one. Also, the people who are claimed to work at the UN or as journalists are certainly non-notable individuals. The reason I've suggested that this entry be deleted is because I don't want Wikipedia turning into a free for all forum for advertising whatever non-notable website someone starts. Wikipedia is a valuable resource but if we're not careful it's with the content that's allowed it'll all go downhill pretty soon. Burmaduck

Comment Burmaduck would not be in a position to know about the notable individuals who contribute to Political Stew. Disregard the comment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)

Comment You'd be surprised what and who I'd know on PS. Burmaduck

Comment Burmaduck on the Political Stew website publicly stated that he ued BT Broadband. Suggest IP address be revealed for user or checked to confirm whether the veracity of this user can be confirmed. If is using BT broadband all claims from user should be ignored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.124 (talk • contribs)

User may also be a personal friend of the originally banned Burmaduck and who may hold a personal grudge against one of the site administrators. Burmaduck is not a site administrator or moderator at Political Stew so is not in a position to know what members do for a living. Burmaduck's argument suggesting users would be surprised what they know is poor and should be fleshed out before any contribution made can be given credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.193.101 (talk • contribs)

Comment Just as PS strictly guards user privacy, so do I guard the personal information I have gleaned from friendships with members over there. Burmaduck

Comment According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, your comments are now rendered meaningless if you keep the information private.

08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Lonely Planet does not endorse or promote this site whatsoever. Political Stew's only link is that it's member's were formerly (and many still are) members of Lonely Planet's forum. This does not gove it any notability. Burmaduck 08:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This entry has been mentioned by the admin i_have_shiny_shoes one or two months ago as part of his daily duties on PS. Burmaduck 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification The exact wording by i_have_shiny_shoes about this wikipedia entry on February 8th was "To build the membership in ways not listed above, for example by acknowledging our existence on Wikipedia, by contributing to improving page-ranking, etc." See here [1] Burmaduck 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick read of the board and nearly all of the statements by the author fall flat. It has failed to attract any new members in months, whilst it has haemorraged contributors for more than the past 6 months. A run down the name of the original members and more than 60% no longer contribute or have walked. The individuals left stay out of boredom and an inability to let go of something that back in the first few months was good. The posts are now stale, there is little to no new content and it serves only to fill a void in peoples lives who cannot find anything more constructive. This does not deserve to be up on wikipedia, the author as demonstrated here has taken to blowing his own trumpet when there is no substance. The whole entry is the creation of someone who has become somewhat obsessed with a dysfunctional forum and now ploughs 100s of hours in to trying in vain to drum up any publicity for it.

Leaving it up would be a great dis-service to your readers. --Bashtard 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment User Bashtard is an ex-member and a personal friend of BurmaDuck. User BurmaDuck is most probably Kagyuster, who performed an act tantamount to incitement by mimicking another users handle on a different forum resulting in a denial of service attack on Political Stew.

User Bashtard neglects to mention that there have been plenty of new members on the forum and writes a comment seemingly more out of bitterness and spite rather than honest. Attacking an author for how they spend their time is poor behaviour and not something that should be taken into consideration and is rather beside the point. The point is whethe the entry meets the WEP guidelines. As it has been mentioned on boots'n'all, Lonely Planet and more sites beyond those and frequently, wholeheartedly suggest 'Keep'.

Comment This is all sort of irrelevant since Bashtard made no real logical argument for deletion. how many members, how active, etc isn't in any way important. The relevant issue here is whether or not Political Stew meets the WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have no connection with Burmaduck, but as an ex member of the board in question I am able to give a more impartial judgement. The authors behaviour should be in question because this entry is part of his continued campaign to publicise an otherwise obscure and dying internet forum. His "ramping up" of his own website is clearly a breach of the WEP guidelines and should be treated as spam.--Bashtard 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have no connection with Kagyuster and am not the real Burmaduck. I am, however, a current and long time PS user. I have no axe to grind against PS. I just want to keep the integrity of Wikipedia which is a valuable resource not a place to promote non-notable websites. Burmaduck 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As for self-promotion, the idea is a little absurd as I (and by extension the other people involved in running the site) haven't promoted the site in any way, shape or form through commercial means, never mind free ones. With the package the site administrators (of which I am one) currently receive through their ISP that includes a certain level of advertising credit with Yahoo! and google adwords/adsense. This can be proven by searching through google and yahoo and seeing if there are any sponsored links.

I don't see why what I do within my private life should have any bearing on the decision you guys make, so Bashtard's comments are really beside the point and completely unnecessary, but I simply felt Wikipedia was an appropriate website in which the history, details and content of Political Stew could be found.

As Political Stew is hardly a common search item, for example googling the words 'Political Stew' returns approximately 75,700 results compared to 'Political Debate' which returns 125 million, a Wikipedia entry is not going to have any discernable effect on the search results. In other words, calling it promotion/advertising seems a little nonsensical and probably wouldn't increase the membership in any substantial capacity, or perhaps at all.

The site is non-profit, and has no commercial operation. It is entirely free to use and it is my desire and that of a few others to see the site moved into the hands on a non-profit company so no member has overall control of the site. As it stands, I solely own one of the few domain names to which the site is linked, where as actual site control itself (through Yahoo!) is administered by someone completely different. In other words, I don't own the site, which is a misleading impression given by some of the comments above. Site improvements, particularly aesthetic ones and those to increase the membership, are generally driven by the moderators, and are decisions in which I rarely play a part.

As above, if deletion is required then it is not a problem and will be completely accepted. I simply felt that what Political Stew is fell within the guidelines, and hence the entry. If not, then my apologies for taking up webspace and your time and I'll see if there is any way in which I can make an entry suitable for the WEP, which indeed there may not be.

Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Comment. Accusations like this should be backed up by substantiation to have any meaning. A newspaper once asked for contributions from our posters, and a small American regional newspaper at that, and for which we asked for an RSS feed to our site in return. Nothing came of it. As for any desire to turn it into a commercial operation, I did make the following comments, and once only, regarding the moderators and what sort of things they should be looking to do if they wanted to become one:

Setting up a non-profit company in which ownership of Political Stew will be vested, the directors of which will oversee the general functioning Political Stew and who will be made up of admins, moderators and members;

Potentially finding a non-commercial or commercial sponsors willing to pay for advertising on the site, the proceeds of which will solely be used to gain new membership, site development and donations to charity/good causes at the wishes of members.

This doesn't mean that it will happen, as I don't make the decisions to do this - the word was 'potentially'.

It seems a little odd that Wikipedia should be the first step to getting new members, when as above, a Wikipedia entry is not going to have any particular effect on the increase in membership, and using a Wikipedia entry to find commercial sponsors is just a little silly. Any commercial investor worth their salt is likely to have a look at a proper business plan and what sort of returns they will get from their money. Simply having a Wikipedia entry does not make people invest. (And Wikipedia, additionally does not have a problem with commercial operations listing their websites).

The argument is purely whether the entry falls within the WEP. I believe it does. You guys may believe it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it'll be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Comment ihss did you not make the following comment (as linked above): To build the membership in ways not listed above, for example by acknowledging our existence on Wikipedia, by contributing to improving page-ranking, etc. You clearly suggest the purpose of creating the Wikipedia entry was to 'build the membership' according to this quote.

Anyway, as the author has no objections, I think it's time the entry was deleted, especially as it is beginning to be vandalised by Bahstard. Burmaduck 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I did make that comment, and don't deny it. Eventually, and the most important word here is eventually, a Wikipedia entry is likely to increase the membership of a site, for example like the Gaia and Protest Warrior forums which are huge. However, given the very nature of the words 'Political Stew' and their limited usage in the English lexicon, as it stands this Wikipedia entry is not going to increase the membership in any way. If I had wanted to advertise it to the members, and anyone else, I would have posted the link on the website, as well as sending it to other websites, none of which I have done, and it was found entirely independently by another member.

I have no objections if it isn't suitable under the WEP. (The comment that follows was not made by me)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Comment " I have no connection with Burmaduck, but as an ex member of the board in question I am able to give a more impartial judgement." said bashtard

For bashtard aka bashtc to say he is an impartial observer really takes the biscuit. Bashtc is a long time personal friend and devotee of the banned Political Stew poster BurmaDuck (just one of numerous usernames) who contributors to Political Stew and the Lonely Planet forums know as a travel writer of little regard who failed to win a plagiarism case against Lonely Planet some years ago. For the past 5 years BurmaDuck (in his many guises) has spammed Lonely Planet. He migrated to the newly setup Political Stew forum and true to form was banned. He was allowed back in and despite many people bending over backwards to accomodate him returned the favor by spamming and abusing the forum and certain ex-moderators on a massive scale when he was banned again. Bashtc has been banned from Lonely Planet and from the Political Stew forum also.

Whatever decision is made about keeping or not keeping this Wikipedia entry it should be noted that any comments from BurmaDuck or Bashtard are made by banned Political Stew posters with an extremely large axe to grind. If this is not the same BurmaDuck banned from Political Stew then using the name of a serial spammer despised by many on Political Stew and other forums would seem to be an odd choice of name for " a current and long time PS user" with " no axe to grind against PS." --Twistingo 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I didn't want to jeapordize my regular handle on PS. Burmaduck 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments when posting it's becoming confusing figuring out who is who. Burmaduck 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment IHSS has finally lost it. Finished with lying through his teeth he will now go back to the personal feuding that is so characteristic of his site. Wikipedia people take note. This article will cause you nothing but headaches now on. Axe it. It is hardly a great inclusion on this otherwise good quality and good natured site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashtard (talk • contribs)

Comment. As stated above, the comment which followed was not made by me. The site history will confirm it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Comment The site history will give a clear record of which comments have been made by the above author though and as poster of the main article it guarantees that this site will get no end of arguments and feuding of this nature. Honestly the article is no great inclusion and is best for all parties if it is removed before resulting in the infighting from the website in question spilling over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashtard (talk • contribs)

Comment Agree that it's time it was deleted. Burmaduck 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The site history does confirm that I'm not the author of the comment which attacked you/Burmaduck. If Wikipedia make a decision to keep the entry based on the WEP, then it should not be a problem in the future. As stated by myself, I believe that it falls within the WEP. Why this would lead to infighting after a decision is made, I have no idea. ----phillipssolutions----

Comment I will try this again: Apologies to IHSS for any confusion caused by my entry. --Twistingo 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment How does it meet WP:WEB criteria? Has the content on PS been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of PS itself? Nope. Has PS won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation? Nope. Has the PS content been distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Hell no. So how does it meet WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kick arse armee de douze canards rides again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashtard (talk • contribs)

Comment at the risk of repeating myself... I again ask: how does this site meet WP:WEB? Which criteria does it meet? Where is the evidence to back up this claim?--Isotope23 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am not that Burmaduck. If I was, would I really be using the proper means to lodge my displeasure at the use of Wikipedia as place to advertise non-notable forums. Also, would I have taken the time and effort to make a request for mediation between Bashtard and IHSS regarding the former's vandalism of the PS Wikipedia entry. Or indeed would I have taken time to revert Bashtard's vandalism efforts. I suggest that, rather than villify me, you stick to the matter at hand. Please provide supporting evidence that PS meets the WP:WEB criteria. Burmaduck 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why hide behind the name of someone banned by the mods and who is loathed by many? If you're a current member you should hae the balls to say who you are, it isn't like the mods can justify a banning. At this time it does look like you're being petty and if you do say who you are you'll get more respect as a result. It was not a good name to choose and you know that, and you only started this after the post was made on the forum, which makes it look petty, not because it's for the good of wikipedia. It's just cowardly and no-one should take you seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.204.70 (talk • contribs)

• Comment You're welcome to your opinion (btw, which PS member are you?). But as I said previously, I'd prefer a discussion over whether the PS entry meets the WP:WEB criteria. Do you have supporting evidence to show it does? If you do, I'll happily accept it if it's credible. Burmaduck 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not a PS member, but wondering about your proper motivations for this. I post at LP. You pretended to state above how much you know about the members, and while you may be right, using that handle is the act of a coward and you'd be far better to explain yourself otherwise you're going to be seen as untrustworthy. Through scanning the forums and your use of language, it's pretty fair to say that you're likely to be btraven or jelly belly. Either way, it's still cowardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.223.168 (talk • contribs)

COmment So why be so "cowardly" if you're not a PS member? And how do you know so much about the writing styles of btrav and JB when they barely still post at LP? But forget that. How does the PS entry meets the WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment They used to post at LP. But that doesn't matter. The only poster online at PS at the moment who call btraven and jelly belly btrav and jb which isn't common is eric84. I guess you've been zinged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.217.70 (talk • contribs)

Comment Ain't there an irony in you wanting to know my ID but being so guarded about your own? How does the PS entry meet the WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 14:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Prolly. But eric84, why did you do it huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.217.70 (talk • contribs)

Comment Is that you shiny_shoes? Using your Orange SPV M5000 again? How does the PS entry meets the WP:WEB criteria?Burmaduck 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

CommentI thought IHSS was a moron about censorship, but I don't reckon he'd idly post with an IP address out in the open, do you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.195.232 (talk • contribs)

Look kids... this isn't your personal messageboard. If you are not going to discuss the merits of the Political Stew article and how it meets the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion posted at WP:WEB then take your discussion elsewhere.--Isotope23 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Point taken Isotope. Anon, how does the PS entry meets the WP:WEB criteria? (And about the IP address, ihss used his real name to post the original article, so you never know.) Burmaduck 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have requested a speedy deletion of the post owing to the vandalism of the page last night, and the continuing argument between the anonymous poster and yourself, Burmaduck. Although I disagree with you over the meeting of the criteria, it is very obvious to both of us that the page is likely to continue to suffer from vandalism. I appreciate what you did yesterday in trying to curtail it. I requested deletion yesterday, but it doesn't mean that want the page to stay defaced while it happens, and the help was most welcome.

I have no concern over whichever poster you are at the Stew. You have your reasons for doing so and, while I may beg to differ over whether they are valid, I don't believe you're doing it for any other reason than your belief on how Wikipedia should be run. You more than proved that by the number of reverts you made yesterday. I'm sorry if others can't see it that way. Phillipssolutions 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Your understanding means a lot. Burmaduck 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)