Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sollog/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sollog
Not a bad article. I think that it could be a worthy featured article! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. A highly controversial article that has been subject to massive vandalism attempts. Putting it on the front page will merely encourage these attempts. Plus Sollog doesn't need the publicity. Like it says on the talk page, "Do not feed the Trolls". DJ Clayworth 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If the trolls hate it it's hardly troll food. silsor 23:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- How is this actionable? This sounds like you are arguing that it should be on VfD! Also, FAs don't necessarily go onto the front page. I should also note that I put that troll notice up, but it only applies to the talk page, which I hardly want to have featured. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I do not think that that word means what you think it means. silsor 06:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Actionable" means that somebody could start legal action because of it. silsor 13:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Silsor, many people have been using this terminology on FAC for quite some time now. In the context of FAC, it means that you cannot action the objection that is dealt with. That is what I meant, and in this context it should be clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Actionable" means that somebody could start legal action because of it. silsor 13:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I do not think that that word means what you think it means. silsor 06:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Object also. We don't need to give him any free advertising. --Sillydragon 23:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think it looks pretty good, especially considering what kind of topic it is. I don't care about advertising or troll food or whatever. Everyking 00:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On second thought, it does seem kinda incomplete. When did Sollog first realize he was a prophet, or God, or whatever? Does he talk about some great revelation he received, or anything like that? Is there anything to be said about him pre-'95? Everyking 04:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. An FA candidate should have wider import than a usenet newsgroup. Besides, I am loathe to give any more credence to tin foil hattery than absolutely necessary. If I had my way, this =would= be on VfD. Denni☯ 00:51, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
- Please place this on VfD then. Your objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with TBSDY here. Theoretically any article that is deemed legitimate (i.e., survives VfD) should have the potential to be featured. Everyking 02:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please place this on VfD then. Your objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Clearly not of high enough quality. And don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Stability is one of the FA criteria, and you knew this would not meet that. - Taxman 03:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Could I have specific objections please? Also, please don't assume bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hard to assume good faith when you nominate an article that has been the subject of such incredibly persistent total vandalism and profanities that it required several people to keep a constant watch on it and protect it for a total of at least a few days. That clearly violates the stability criteria and the uncontroversial also. Further violating the uncontroversial criteria is that the talk page requires such messages as "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed." and "This article contains information that is considered troll food, i.e. it is used by people with a lot of time on their hands to create discord". In addition the article is full of weasel words where information is not known or has not been researched. Especially egregious in that regard is the legal problems section. The only source for that section appears to be Altman (hard to claim him as an entirely unbiased source). Some more, even primary sources for the arrests and trial would be needed since those claims are of course specifically contradicted by people claiming to be Sollog supporters. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying I'm a deliberately disruptive editor? Thank you for the reasons why this is not good enough for a featured article, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I did not say you are a disruptive editor. You are clearly not in general. But for the reasons above, which I would have thought were obvious to you too, I feel that this nomination had no merit. There is a difference between not liking one example of your behavior, and thinking you are a disruptive editor. I consistently value your overall contributions, but didn't think this one was helpful. It is since clear that you did not intend harm by nominating this, but again, for the reason given, at the time it did not appear that the nomination was made solely because the article met all the FA criteria. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying I'm a deliberately disruptive editor? Thank you for the reasons why this is not good enough for a featured article, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hard to assume good faith when you nominate an article that has been the subject of such incredibly persistent total vandalism and profanities that it required several people to keep a constant watch on it and protect it for a total of at least a few days. That clearly violates the stability criteria and the uncontroversial also. Further violating the uncontroversial criteria is that the talk page requires such messages as "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed." and "This article contains information that is considered troll food, i.e. it is used by people with a lot of time on their hands to create discord". In addition the article is full of weasel words where information is not known or has not been researched. Especially egregious in that regard is the legal problems section. The only source for that section appears to be Altman (hard to claim him as an entirely unbiased source). Some more, even primary sources for the arrests and trial would be needed since those claims are of course specifically contradicted by people claiming to be Sollog supporters. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Could I have specific objections please? Also, please don't assume bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No vote, but the only objection I've seen so far that is even somewhat actionable is Taxman's. That this is about a troll means nothing; if necessary, the article can easily be flagged as one to never be featured on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object that this character doesn't need further publicity, no matter how well-written the article might be. RickK 07:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Not an actionable objection. Invalid. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object: No details on his life pre-95, too many single-sentence paragraphs, seems to be randomly called Ennis or Sollog from sentence to sentence with no reason for preferring the name he has rejected and finds insulting, some lack of clarity in the writing (e.g In the sentence In early 1995, Sollog first came to public attention by buying large ads that promoted his e-books, prophecies, and religious views in several Philadelphia newspapers,, were the ads or his 'e-books, prophecies, and religious views' in these papers?) I see no reason why this article could not be featured if it ever becomes comprehensive and well-written enough. Filiocht 12:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Finally, some actionable objections! I think I perhaps should have placed this on peer review first. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment When did it become normal so say that because an objection is so funadmental it can't be fixed, we must ignore it? If there are good reasons not to make something an FAC then we should not make it an FAC, whether it's fixable or not. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ever since I've been editing Wikipedia. The FAC page states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It came into play this summer or so primarily to avoid articles failing over objections that cannot be fixed such as the topic being objectionable or obscure. If there are good reasons for an article not to be featured, then it will fail other criteria. In this case, there are plenty of other issues with this article. See above. - Taxman 00:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong. I had this argument with Denni over exploding whale. He was told by other editors and myself that his objection that it wasn't notable enough was not actionable and therefore invalid. The article became featured and hit the front page. I do appreciate knowing about the other objections, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's basically what I just said. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh. Sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's basically what I just said. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong. I had this argument with Denni over exploding whale. He was told by other editors and myself that his objection that it wasn't notable enough was not actionable and therefore invalid. The article became featured and hit the front page. I do appreciate knowing about the other objections, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It came into play this summer or so primarily to avoid articles failing over objections that cannot be fixed such as the topic being objectionable or obscure. If there are good reasons for an article not to be featured, then it will fail other criteria. In this case, there are plenty of other issues with this article. See above. - Taxman 00:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Ever since I've been editing Wikipedia. The FAC page states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A successful transformation of a vanity article into a well-written article, a triumph of NPOV over trolling, and a successful collaborative editing project in the face of constant vandalism. Gamaliel 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral. I feel that while the article seems to be decent, that's not the only criterion we should be using to decide if something should be a featured article. For the frontpage, I feel that we also need to consider how candicates reflect on the project. Some kinds of topics, such as perhaps Zoophilia, detract from the project's image, regardless of how well-written the article is. Others act as a magnet for trouble. I understand TBSDY's perspective that the only thing that should count is "Is the article good", but I disagree with it. Understand that I don't feel that the article itself should be deleted, I just feel that the front stage should have a higher standard than other articles, measured seperately and both by article quality point of view and topic quality point of view. --Improv 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support (reluctantly) only on the principle that the article is well-written, and we are trying to maintain NPOV on such subjects, even repugnant or silly ones. I have to state that I share the sentiment that he doesn't deserve any free advertising or promotion, though. Vaoverland 01:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Object I agree with all of the objections Taxman brought up. --Clngre 05:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
