Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 6

Fred Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contest Prod. Prodded for absurd notability concerns; Guy played with Duke Ellington for 24 years. [1] Has an article on the French wiki; is linked to from the Portal:Music Date of Birth page, and the Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics worksheet. Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mesa Riverview (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This survived an AfD last year, but on February 5 it was speedy-deleted twice by two different admins as blatant advertising. I put another speedy delete tag on the third recreation on the same day, but another editor removed the tag saying this isn't advertising. To me, this reads like blatant advertising. Could we get the original version prior to the two speedies restored to see whether it might be less blatant? Corvus cornix_talk 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse recreation - the restored version looks fine. In future, reverting to a clean version together with action against the spammer is a better solution than speedy deletion. BlueValour (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The previous problem with lack of sources is now resolved:

• Peter Cooper, author of Beginning Ruby, talks about it on his blog.
• The Guardian, a major United Kingdom newsmagazine, reported on ED's political commentary about the George W. Bush role in the TL;DR on ED.
• Bantown claimed responsibility on ED for discovery of a critical Livejournal hack, as reported by the Washington Post.
• ED gets featured in Wikipedia's 'Wikizine'. See Archive.
• A German news article is one of the first to mention the craiglist experiment and links to the ED article.
• The University of Amsterdam blogs about the SlimVirgin article on ED. See Link.
• MSNBC TV - MSNBC, the major and leading cable news network, reported on ED and its role in the RFJason Craigslist Experiment, including screen shots of the website and the URL. Google Video mirror, and YouTube mirror.
• Global TV, a Canadian English language privately owned television network showed clips of the site on their broadcast. YouTube
• The Ottawa Sun referenced ED, quoting the sites take on the evolution of the Emo scene.
• The Toronto Sun also reported on the coverage of that music scene, in a much more expanded article.
• Der Spiegel, a major German news source, reported on ED and Jason Fortuny.
• La Presse Affaires, a leading francophone news source, also covered ED and Fortuny.
• San Francisco Chronicle, a major newspaper in San Francisco describes the incident in detail.
• Maclean's, a Canadian national weekly current affairs magazine with over 2 and a half million readers talks about a scammers who's personal details were put on the website
• NU.nl a popular Dutch news website.
• Boing Boing (post by Xeni Jardin) - http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/10/the_seattle_craigsli.htm
• Broowaha - http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=88
• Good Morning Silicon Valley - http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/09/perhaps_youd_be.html
• Ten Zen Monkeys - "Webzine" - http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/23/jason-fortuny-speaks/
• Waxy - http://www.waxy.org/archive/2006/09/08/sex_bait.shtml
• Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1553329
• Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1553813
• Slashdot - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/0539248
• ilovetheinternets.com owned by Jessica Gillespie blogs about it.
• Alternet.org an award-winning news magazine links to the John Edwards article on ED in their blog.
• New York Times Magazine The SlimVirgin article gets a mention in a paragraph about Wiki drama.
• MyCrimeSpace.com a site that writes crime-related news about MySpace mentions the Megan Meier article in a short posting.
• Jules Crittenden a Boston Herald city editor and columnist recommends the site on his blog.
• Gawker - http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-ed-something-awful-and-b
• Wired Magazine - http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-02/mf_goons?currentPage=all
• lestercavestany.com - http://lestercavestany.com/2008/01/11/before-you-react-to-encyclopedia-dramatica/
• riight, inc and riight.com. all rights reserved - http://blog.riight.com/index.php?%2Farchives%2F31-Scientology-IRL-Raid-Update.html
• MND, one of the top 75 most popular right-of-center websites for 2007 - http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/23/anonymous-releases-statements-outlining-war-on-scientology/
• On Line Opinion is a professional Australian e-journal "articles are gathered from a variety of independent sources" - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6860
• NBC shows a page of ED, the URL can clearly be seen around 1:18, YouTube link. Moodkips (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment Although Moodkips is a SPA (presumably though just for this particular purpose) he does seem to have found a number of apparently good references. Now is the time to see whether we believe in our NPOV, or follow our prejudices. DGG (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily keep deleted again, all the SPA does is sum up pretty much all the unreliable sources brought up in every previous DRV. Most of these are blogs, passing mentions (there was a discussion that the MSNBC video was as weak a passing mention as you can get), and otherwise non-reliable (the SPA attempts to use Meta as a source). ED isn't getting an article now or any time soon at this rate; the fact that the SPA has to point out an exact second where an ED page is very briefly shown in a video is a pretty good indicator of desperation. See WP:V#Questionable sources, WP:RS, WP:BIGNUMBER, etc. There's only maybe one valid source in the bunch, and it would be better used in an article on Jason Fortuny, not ED. --Coredesat 11:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yes because The Guardian, New York Times magazine, Washington Post and MSNBC are all unreliable sources are they? Having less reliable sources amongst reliable ones doesn't make the reliable ones less reliable. Your argument is not only incorrect it is invalid.Moodkips (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedily keep deleted per Coredesat. Let's face it, "OMG it got mentioned on a blog!" isn't going to get any article restored, and the fact that this is nominated by an SPA isn't doing it any favours either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  Per the same as above, and the user who nominated the article doesn't affect the reliability of sources either.--Moodkips (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. If the SPA can't be bothered to make a better case for something as contentious as this, I can't be bothered to overturn the previous decision. A long list of "references" including many sources which clearly fail WP:RS (blogs, Wikizine), and where the two potentially good sources I did check at random give a 404 error (Der Spiegel) or are so completely not about ED (San Francisco Chronicle, which is the ultimate definition of a passing mention) that they are not convincing that "the previous problem with lack of sources" is solved at all. Fram (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  So you are too lazy to properly analyse the sources provided? And you checked a few at random? And I take it you didn't check the old discussion? If you aren't 'bothered' to check the sources provided properly, then don't bother adding your 'random' views.--Moodkips (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close as none of the "new" information is reliable. I count 11 blogs (unreliable), seven cases where the site is named or linked to, but not discussed in any serious or critical manner as required to be a reliable source, two in which the site isn't actually mentioned, two 404s, two nonresponsive sites, two paywalls, and the various videos that have been submitted and rejected in the past. Nothing new, keep deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• If this is not undeleted for referencing problems, I will list all the of sources at WP:V/N to determine which are reliable and which are not. I will then relist it here along with only the reliable sources.Moodkips (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • — Moodkips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You do that. I don't see a reliable source in the bunch. Blogs, Youtube, Google video? None of them reliable. Passing mentions, check. Where is there a single article in which ED is the primary focus of the article, one that an encyclopedia article can be written from? I don't see one. Corvus cornix_talk 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily keep deleted again blogs and forums do not make relaible sources. Sources which only mention the subject in passing do not qualify for the language of the notability guideline which start with "has been the subject of" If a news article mentioned that a giant alien space pig flew over jacks newsstand shooting fireballs out of its rear end at everyone, jacks newststand would not be notable, but the alien and his fireballs would be. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Permit creation of a new article not necessarily focused on wikipedia. ED has dealt with some other topics as well, and a little of this is well documented. I do not think any of the above people can have possibly actually examined each of the sources:

On emo, the two newspaper articles are RSs. That they are behind a paywall is by our consistent policy totally irrelevant. One can go to a library and read them. This is a distortion of RSs to keep out a subject which does seem this time to meet the rules. The news articles on the Fortuny matter are also unquestionably RSs, the coverage of ED is significant, and at least some of them are freely accessible. They talk abut ED is a substantial manner. Similarly the Macleans and the MSNBC. That;'senough sourcing for a modest article. DGG (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, DGG, but I read through all of the non-blog sources, and the most any of those articles said about ED was "this information was posted on ED" or something of the sort. One had a paragraph; the others had maybe a sentence. I'll assume you were able to reach the Maclean's article to evaluate it, but I've tried at two different times now and received timeout notices; if you can provide some better insight on what it's about and its content relevant to ED, that would be great. The MSNBC source has been discussed at previous DRVs and rejected - if it's anything like the Global piece, it shows the screen of the site; if that's enough to be a reliable source, there were several other sites in teh Global piece that we'll need to write something on. I highly doubt (and again, I can't see them without shelling out for it, which I'm not willing to do) that the two paywalled articles are substantively about ED. If someone wants to research them at the library and tell me otherwise, then hurrah. But to say that they are reliable sources sight unseen is something I'm personally not willing to do. As mentioned below, if someone wants to write a brilliant article, using reliable sources that are able to be evaluated on the actual coverage they give the topic itself, then that's great. I, and apparently most other commenters thus far, don't feel these sources meet the grade at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• We've discussed this many times. Prior consensus from multiple DRVs is logged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests#Encyclopedia Dramatica as "Consensus is that it will not be considered again before a workable, brilliantly sourced draft using only reliable sources that are independent is created and presented in userspace." So, um where is the userspace draft that is well sourced? GRBerry 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)