Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Keep commenters, a numerical minority, failed to address Isotope's concerns regarding obvious POV/OR in a userspace article draft. As these were unrebutted, deleters carry the day in number and in strength of argument. Xoloz 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax
Disputed text originally userfied at editor's request. However, not only does it contain a vast amount of fair use images, but the user is now attempting to copy and paste the entire thing back into Sweetest Day, where it was removed from by large consensus in the first place. --InShaneee 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:SALT, WP:BAN. I remember having to deal with this user's BS on the commons. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, while User:Miracleimpulse investigations did produce some worthwhile sources, most of the relevant sources have already been integrated into the main article in an NPOV way (though the NYT stuff might warrent further review and some level of inclusion). What's left is a POV piece rife with conclusions and conjecture as well as image galleries and lists of sponsors that don't add anything of value to an aritcle on Sweetest Day. Based on the editor's penchant for pasting this version into the Sweetest Day article I'd say it's more trouble than it is worth at this point, particularly in light of some of his behaviors surrounding this topic elsewhere on the internet...--Isotope23 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Redirect to article status on it's own page, and Protect. This article is under attack from anonymous users, who will not allow the vast majority of it's content to be added to the current Sweetest Day page on Wikipedia. This is possibly the most comprehensive article about Sweetest Day ever written. It contains hundreds of verifiable fully-sourced facts, unlike the current Sweetest Day article, which reads like a cleverly-written advertisement. No article which is involved in a content dispute or is under attack from anonymous editors should ever be deleted from Wikipedia.
According to Wikipedia, "a hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. There is often some material object (e.g. snake oil) involved which is actually a forgery; however, it is possible to perpetrate a hoax by making only true statements using unfamiliar wording or context (see DHMO)." Sweetest Day is a combination of all of these things, combining trickery, deception and forgery or verisimilitude with true statements used in a clever context. Meeting this criteria, the topic of Sweetest Day deserves it's own article on Wikipedia as a *notable* 85-year-old industry-generated hoax.
Another solution to the content dispute on the Sweetest Day page would be to delete the current Sweetest Day page and replace it with a new page entitled Sweetest Day: Holiday or Hoax? and therein present both points of view on the topic fully. That way readers could decide for themselves the truth about Sweetest Day instead of having anonymous editors decide for them.
Reasons not to delete this user page also include the fact that it is a user page and thus a work in progress. Much information remains to be added. The antics and activities of the Candy Industry in the promotion of Sweetest Day have yet to be chronicled in the cities of Buffalo and Detroit. Over the next few months this article could easily double in size and leave no doubt whatsoever about how Sweetest Day really began.
Finally, this user page should not be deleted because the Wikipedian composing the article (myself) is not an anonymous hero and hereby releases Wikipedia from any and all liability which might result from the publication of this article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia rocks! Robb Thomas, Chicago, Illinois, otherwise known as Miracleimpulse 10:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the problems with your page, including conjecture from your sources, and original research have been exhaustively covered already. Some of the sources you've uncovered are valuable Robb, but the way you've presented them is not encyclopedic, relies far too much on conjecture, and is not in anyway conforming to the neutral point of view (and I know you dispute the neutrality of the current article, but it fully states, with references for those who want to do further reading on the topic, both the "popular mythology" of Sweetest Day, and the research of Schmidt/Lubinger tracing this back to a "Candy day" in 1910 or 1921 respectively... that is the definition of NPOV). For all your efforts so far, you still don't have a smoking gun. The current version displays exactly what can be verifiably stated based on the sources. There are other avenues that would be more appropriate for displaying your research and theories; like your own website on the topic.--Isotope23 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Response Have you checked that Scott C. Martin review link on the Sweetest Day page lately? It goes nowhere. And why did you remove the link to uniqueholidaygiftideas.com calling it "linkspam" and not the links to Hallmark and American Greetings websites? In fact aren't all of the external links (and most of the references) on the Sweetest Day page linkspam as well? Face it, Isotope, what you want deleted from the Sweetest Day article are the facts which make industry look bad. You continually delete them making no effort whatsoever to make them NPOV. The fact about Sweetest Day is this: Industry, in a huge advertising campaign (which is still ongoing today) used the plight of orphans, poor people and even wounded soldiers to increase candy sales. That is the conclusion you don't want readers to realize, and that is why you voted to have my user page deleted as well. Wikipedia is not advertising. There is no neutral zone between a holiday and a hoax. Miracleimpulse 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, WP:AGF Robb, I'm not the one with an axe to grind here. We've been over this at least a dozen time... your version is POV and poorly worded conjecture. What was verifiable (the Cleveland Plains Dealer source) has been mentioned in the main article while maintaining some semblance of formatting and layout standards. As for the linkspam, I removed it because the editor who added it was adding links to that site to numerous holiday articles without justification and I removed it from all articles where the user added it, not just from Sweetest Day.--Isotope23 16:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A user can have an alternate, in-progress article in their space. — Reinyday, 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but also keep this in user space. The end point of these procedures to make a better encylopedia, and I don't see how deleting this page does that. Miracleimpulse can always copy/paste this stuff from a text file on his computer. --Transfinite 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment, out of curiousity, what is the remedy then when the "in-progress" article violates WP:NOR, WP:ASR, WP:EL, et al? It is in the user space so I imagine other editors would (and should) avoid edits and modification to what basically constitutes a sandbox; but this "in-progress" article is so far outside of anything that could ever be posted in the main article namespace that I don't see how keeping it improves the encyclopedia. A simple text dump of the source articles would be infinitely more useful here.--Isotope23 13:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a free web space provider for original research forks. Used for edit warring while cheerfully ignoring things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:CON. Delete, quit wasting time on a lost cause, move on. Weregerbil 11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment The bulk of the current Sweetest Day article is now derived from material which was organized on this user page. If this new editor has POV issues, well, that is what other more experienced editors are here to help with. This page should remain because it has contributed valuable content to the Sweetest Day article. Again, Keep. Miracleimpulse 12:45, 21 October 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
