Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25

Conservapedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was deleted in December 2006 because it failed to meet notability guidelines for a web page (see AFD here). The site has drawn some recent attention in the media, including prominent blogs such as the Huffington Post [1] and Wonkette [2]. The criteria under which the original article was deleted appear to have changed. "Conservapedia" now has 164,000 Ghits, where it had no more than 20 at the time of deletion. Justin (Authalic) 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article wasn't deleted for want of google hits, but due to a lack of notability. Are there now multiple (or sufficient) independent, non-trivial reports with which to write an article? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Some information I found (i) Gibson, Charles (February 23, 2007) World News with Charles Gibson ABC News now/World new now. (reporting, "And among today's top rising searches is Conservapedia. We're not sure why this is rising. But a group of self-described online conservatives have begun their own version of Wikipedia, which they say is both anti-Christian and anti-American, their opinion. And so they've tried to create an alternative."); (ii) Kansas City Star (February 27, 2007) Blog bits. Section: B; Page B8 (writing, "In the Wikipedia, there is an extensive and well-written entry on the term African-American, which serves as anchor pages for many other related topics on our history, culture, religions, political movements, civic organizations and more. In the Conservapedia, I could find no entry for African-American, Black or even Negro. There is however, a page there for "Mulatto." Just in time for Barack Obama's presidential campaign!"). (already cited by JoshuaZ below (see [6])-- Jreferee 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and continued protection from re-creation. This website still does not satisfy WP:WEB. Huffington Post and Wonkette are not reliable sources, they are blogs, and even the Wonkette entry was trivial. WP:WEB calls for sourcing from multiple non-trivial independent works, and that does not exist as of right now. If in a couple months months the website has gained recognition in sufficiently indepedent and reliable sources, then perhaps it can come back here.--RWR8189 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on new sources I think the protection can be removed, no judgement on whether the article would definitively satisfy WP:WEB.--RWR8189 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nothing has changed here significantly enough for this article to come back. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion absent evidence of non-trivial reliable sources from which a proper article could be written. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Still no reliable sources. Wickethewok 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I was considering saying to overturn, but I missed the word "blog". Blogs are almost never reliable, and being well known does not make them such. As mentioned above, Wonkette doesn't really give it non-trivial coverage anyway. -Amarkov moo! 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to overturn. Really, if sources like that have been found, I don't mind if you strike my comment out for me. -Amarkov moo! 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted There are still no reliable sources citing Conservapedia yet. BTW, I link to some Conservapedia criticisms on my user page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn per Joshua. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why not incubate the article at Eagle Forum, using reliable sources, until it becomes large enough for its own article? Andjam 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because if there were enough reliable sources to write about it at Eagle Forum then there'd be enough to write at least a short article about it at Conservapedia. There aren't, so here we are. — coelacan talk — 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't really associated with Eagle Forum is it, other than that both have overlapping people working on them? Corvus cornix 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - There are no non-trivial reliable sources currently that mean this article has a chance of coming back. Of course, I don't mind it if the nominator creates a version in his userspace, and brings the issue up next time at DRV. But for now, it's endorsed. --sunstar net^talk 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources => no article, regardless of Google hits. If this station web site is truly famous, it's bound to get coverage in the mainstream media eventually. When that happens, the article might be restored. EdJohnston 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion. --h2g2bob 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation/Undelete per H2, additional reliable sources include [3], [4], [5]. There are more than enough sources now to write a decent stub, and WP:WEB is easily satisfied. JoshuaZ 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do not count this due to a conflict of interest, as I've been editing fairly actively on Conservapedia. I think Conservapedia may have become borderline-notable in the past 24 hours and may at least be a low-grade Internet phenomenon.

Over the past few days there's been considerable merriment at Conservapedia's expense in non-conservative blogs. Some of it is deserved, but some of it is not-so-innocent merriment. They've been laughing at genuine content; adding tongue-in-cheek phony content; being taken in by phony content and laughing at it, laughing at Conservapedia for being taken in by phony content, and generally participating in the easy task of heaping scorn on the whole thing.

Anyway. The result of all this is that literally within the twelve hours or so, Conservapedia has gotten itself noticed. As I write this, a search on Google News now returns twelve hits including Carlisle Sentinel (PA), Guardian Unlimited, Information World Review, Wired New (quite a good article), and, believe it or not (and I do find it hard to believe) CBS News. These are just blogs-are-talking articles, don't expect Katie Couric to lead with it. Not a big deal. CBS News!

Oh, and Wikimedia asked me if I'd be willing to answer questions from a Congressional Quarterly reporter who apparently contacted them with questions about Conservapedia.

As I write this, Alexa rank is about 600,000, so I don't want to press the point too hard. But I'd suggest keeping an eye on Google News and on Alexa to see whether this is a seven day's wonderflash in the pan or whether Conservapedia actually ends up getting some traction. Of course there's absolutely no rush to have an article on Conservapedia in Wikipedia. If it fails deletion review someone can always try again if and when it's more-than-borderline notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather wait a month than a week; internet phenomena usually turn out to be rather ephemeral, and I'm interested to see just what sort of staying power Conservapedia has. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant to use the idiom "nine days' wonder" and got it wrong. And I didn't mean for it to be taken literally. And as I said, there's no rush. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. User:JoshuaZ asked me to take a second look at this issue, since he has offered some better sources (see his entry two comments above). The first one in his list is a column at cbsnews.com called 'Blogophile'. From reading that one, it's clear that the author looked at Conservapedia and then looked at a few blogs. No interviews were done, and no other news outlets were cited. The last one in his list is one from the Kansas City News, but it seems it is not an item that actually appeared in the newspaper, it's a posting in an associated blog. I still think we need to wait for more media coverage. By not reporting on Conservapedia in their regular printed news pages, editors are expressing a judgment on its importance. Perhaps another DRV in three months can be considered. EdJohnston 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'll take a look at JoshuaZ's sources, this is interesting. --sunstar net^talk 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify, there are other editors other than just me who have given new sources. Those sources are highly relevant as well. JoshuaZ 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying this, JoshuaZ. What are the sources?? --sunstar net^talk 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you look above, more sources are given by h2g2bob and Dpbsmith. These include articles in the Guardian and Wired. JoshuaZ 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the deletion. There are enough third-party sources now. I agree that the Wonkette reference is trivial, but the article at the Huffington Post shouldn't be discounted merely because it's labeled a "blog". The author's bio shows serious journalistic credentials. The article in Wired News is particularly valuable. Caution: If the article is undeleted, nothing in it should be flatly asserted as fact based solely on what the self-admitted ideologues at Conservapedia say. Acceptable: "The site reports that it has x number of registered users." Unacceptable: "The site has x number of registered users." JamesMLane t c 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Josh and James. Guettarda 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per JoshuaZ, h2g2bob, Dpbsmith. --sunstar net^talk 09:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't say "per dpbsmith." I did not say the closing should be overturned. My comment was exactly that: a comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The site is attracting considerable attention and even Jimmy Wales has commented on it.[6] The current arrangement, with a redirect to Eagle Forum but ever increasing Conservapedia-related information there, is unsatisfactory. Bondegezou 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• (Possibly Weak?) Allow recreation (or Undelete, if all the previous version lacked was sourcing) based on the sources. Personally (read: not based on Wiki Policy), I'd wait at least until the project has proven that it has come out of its childhood state and that it doesn't collapse under the weight of its sudden quasi-notability (especially in regard to bandwidth and stability). However, those are personal issues, and judging by the policies/guidelines, the sources should be good enough to write an article. --Sid 3050 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak recreate. Conservapedia is now attracting a large amount of attention. (Which might backfire...the project seems like a little bit of a mess, since there isn't just one kind of "conservative" out there.) Thunderbunny 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The site is referenced at New Scientist and Wired News and is being referenced (mostly made fun of) all over the internet. People will be searching for information about it and it needs an entry other than a redirect that is just confusing.Tmtoulouse 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn They have risen to nearly 10,000 in traffic rank. This means either a tremendous increase in interest, or a concerted DOS attack. In either case it would seem to me to be notable. Paul Studier 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started working on a draft using the above sources for a new article at User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia. Feel free to help out. JoshuaZ 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not that it means much, but a plausible possibility of the jump in traffic is due to the fact that Conservapedia was linked to on 4chan's /b/.
    ...But that would be giving 4chan too much credit, I suppose. --Kenjoki 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the original delete decision. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion as set out in this deletion review by h2g2bob, JoshuaZ, and Dpbsmith so that the topic now meets WP:N. Please use the source material to add content to the article. Please do not write the article and then add the sources. At least one source per sentence would be great! -- Jreferee 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since February 28th, it seems to me that the Internet's interest in Conservapedia has faded. A Google News search shows the most recent article to be dated March 1st, and the list of hits in an ordinary Google Web search hasn't changed much in the last few days. Conservapedia has apparently done some major beefing up of its server and bandwidth, and as I write this the site is alive and well. I'm not sure what they're doing about registering new users—I don't want to try registering as a sockpuppet just to see whether registration is enabled—but vandalism, which was wildly out of control, has now died down and the pranks have mostly cleaned out. (Yes, there are still some silly real articles, but it no longer says that Jesus has announced that he is God's nephew rather than his son, etc). I said before I thought Conservapedia might be borderline-notable. Well, I'm less sure now. (OTOH, Alexa's curves are still rising. By the way... does anyone here use the Alexa toolbar? Has anyone here ever seen anyone using it? Just wondering.) In any case, there's no reason to rush at all on having an article on Conservapedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we shouldn't care if anyone "scoops" us. I wouldn't be surprised if Conservapedia was clearly notable in a couple of months, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't.
• Comment Also, as I note on the Talk page of JoshuaZ's draft, it seems to me that there is a lot of stuff I'd like to know about Conservapedia, and would want to see in an article, for which no sources are currently available. Andrew Schlafly is obviously associated with it. One article calls him "the" founder, but only in one place; the rest of the article uses the phrase "founders." Is he "the" founder or not? If not, do we really know who the other "founders" are? It's dangerously tempting to make assumptions about this and other things. Who funds it? One guesses it's Schlafly personally, but does anyone know? Many obvious questions, currently few sourced answers. I think JoshuaZ's draft is a good idea, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Palindromic words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Palindromic phrases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Palindromic phrases (English) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Query whether decision to delete reflects the majority view in deletion debate. Matt 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The three pages Palindromic words, Palindromic phrases and Palindromic Phrases (English) were all included in the same deletion proposal. Before the deletion discussion was moved or removed (I can no longer find it to verify), I counted 9 votes to keep, 10 votes to transwiki (which I understand to mean move to Wiktionary) and only then delete from Wikipedia, and 8 straight deletes. Contrary to the majority opinion that the content should not be lost, the pages and links thereto appear to have been summarily deleted with no indication that the content has been moved elsewhere. I propose that the pages and links should be restored. Matt 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse. Afd seems proper. Palindromic phrases (English) never existed; Palindromic words was properly transwikied (transwiki log). Palindromic phrases and List of palindromic phrases in English patently don't meet wikt:WS:CFI to my eye, so no point in transwikiing, but if Wiktionary wants them (and I'll point this drv out to some active Wiktionarians to be sure), there's no harm in a temporary undelete. —Cryptic 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I already pointed it out over a week ago at wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Do we want an appendix of palindromic phrases?. The ensuing discussion noted the existence of wikt:Category:English palindromes for which such lists should be considered a to-do list — lists of words being categories of words at Wiktionary. Uncle G 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But what about the phrases? Is the view that they are or aren't suitable for Wiktionary? If not then the Wikipedia deletion debate needs to be reopened as a "Wikipedia or nothing" question since many people originally voted for deletion from Wikipedia on the understanding that the phrases would be "transwikied". Matt 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. I am pretty sure that Palindromic phrases (English) did exist. I think the confusion (and possibly the reason I could not find the deletion log) is that it was at some point renamed/redirected to List of palindromic phrases in English. Now that I can see the deletion log again, I am reminded that Palindromic words was indeed put into some sort of "holding area" at Wiktionary. As far as I see the process was never properly completed: the list is effectively unfindable at Wiktionary, and all the links from the Wikipedia article were deleted rather than changed to point to Wiktionary. However, fixing this does not require undeletion. I would like to see the palindromic phrases treated similarly so that the content is not lost. Matt 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Either no article ever existed at Palindromic phrases (English) or the database is screwed. I suspect the former. Maybe a different title? Guy (Help!) 13:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It was Palindromic Phrases (English). No deleted revisions there except a redirect to List of palindromic phrases in English, though. —Cryptic 13:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh for goodness' sake. Sorry, but this ridiculous case sensitivity is one of my favourite pet hates. Matt 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Deletion discussions are not closed on vote counts alone. Policies such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary govern the process.

      As for the list being unfindable: That's because no editor such as you has stepped forward to do the work to put the information into proper Wiktionary format. Wiktionary is a wiki. There's nothing stopping you from doing the work yourself. Go and ensure that all of the actual word articles for the words on the transwikified list of palindromic words are properly categorized into wikt:Category:English palindromes and the other subcategories of wikt:Category:Palindromes — which are the already existent categories of words in the dictionary that encyclopaedia articles should point to for lists of palindromic words in various languages. Uncle G 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

      • I am aware of this, but the person who deleted the list from Wikipedia should not have left things in a state where it appears to someone unfamiliar with these minutiae that the information in the list has been lost. Even I thought it had been lost, and I participated in the original debate where, I am now reminded, it was noted that the single words at least had been "transwikied". I am also not a fan of the category method. It is too stark, and gives no opportunity for additional comments such as were present in the list, or for mini-definitions in an easily accessible form (without having to click on every single link). The list currently at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words is a far better format IMO. Matt 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse List of palindrones in one particular language? No. WP:NOT --Doc^g 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse "votes" to transwiki are properly counted as supporting the deletion of the content from wikipedia. If the suggested target can't or won't accept the material a simple delete is the necessary and correct outcome unless people explicitly say otherwise. That it certainly how I understood my own "vote" in the debate. Eluchil404 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse First is a interesting topic, and it doesnt harm anyone being here or be transwikied. This wikipedia is in English, and a list of palindromes in english is a great idea. Second, it surely have encyclopedic value. People are arguing that Wikipedia is a dictionary, but when a palindrome has been in a dictionary? A dictionary is a book of meanings for words, and as far as I know, anitalavalatina (the only one I know, nd its in spanish) doesn´t have any meaning. This articles doesn´t harm anyone, and as Jimbo said once: hard drives are cheap.--ometzit<col> 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused by your "endorse" vote. Other people are using "endorse" to indicate support for deletion, but judging by your comments you seem to be against deletion? I guess "endorse" is just an unfortunate choice of word. It could be understood to mean either endorsal of the original deletion, or endorsal of the proposal here to reverse the deletion. Matt 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I might have screwed something but i`m too lazy to corrected so im plain words: I want the list back, whatever that mean here. I`m against the deletion, endorsing reverting the deletion.--ometzit<col> 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, WP:WINAD. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Per Radiant, Eluchil and Doc. This is unmaintenable, hard to source and unclear what the inclusion criterion are (for example if I have any palindrome P should we include "Racecar" + P + "Racecar"?. If someone wants to have a list of notable palindromes (with sourcing for the fame of the palindromes) that would be ok. Roughly speaking, an list of all articles which are palindromes (and are important for being palindromes would be a fine list). So for example it might include Madam, I'm Adam or A man, a plan, a canal, Panama or others where there is enough sourcing to write something nontrival (I'm presuming there would be enough in these two cases). JoshuaZ 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just do not understand why people feel the need to delete perfectly reasonable content that many people have contributed to, put effort into, and no doubt find interesting. And for the sake of what? Saving a few bytes on a server somewhere? I am extremely disappointed by this outcome. Matt 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Jeffree Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Jeffree Star is a celebrity who is well known for his controversial music. His fame started mainly from sites like myspace and is well for being a make up artist to the celebrities, including kelly Osbourne. Though the article that was originally created seemed liked a biography page, stated in the reason for it's original deletion. The article should be recreated do to the fact that he has a new EP coming out, titled Plastic Surgery Slumber Party that will be released in March on iTunes. Also he has made many media appearances such as being on America's Next Top Model. He was originally an Underground Celebrity but now has emerged to be comparable to any other television star. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs).