| Revision as of 12:35, 29 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[] and []: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:53, 30 October 2006 edit undoNawlinWiki (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators221,644 edits →24 October 2006: close, deletion endorsedNext edit → |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]'' |
|
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]'' |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===24 October 2006=== |
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
New entry right below here. Please put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== (For example, ====]====) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== Anarchopedia ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Come on! what's going on here? With approaching 100,000 Google hits Anarchopedia is notable. I see absolutely no reason for this deleted page to be protected. Continued protection says all the wrong things about Misplaced Pages. So get it unprotected and I'll write a (short) article about Anarchopedia. ] 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{article|Anarchopedia}}, ], last deleted by Xoloz as a repost on 10/2/06. --] 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] appears to be the most recent AFD, closed by Xoloz on 8/15/06. (There also was a ].) ] 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Endorse deletion''' Article subject already went through successful afd nom plus apparently 2 deletion reviews which concluded with supporting the deletion verdict. Compelling new evidence needs to be introduced to reopen the issue. Googling for Anarchopedia produces a lot of noise, but it seems very difficult to find anything authoritative as a source. Single hit in ] database - from a brief mention in an Irish Times column discussing the Los Angeles Times' 2005 ill-fated and short-lived "]" experiment. (And the column inaccurately uses Anarchopedia as one example of "many" Misplaced Pages fork projects) ] 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' valid AfD. Who cares how many Google hits there are when there are only ''']'''. Plus all the usual: ], ], lack of reliable sources, etc. With the AfD and previous DRVs, consensus is clear. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', Google hits mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. No reason presented to overturn AfD. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' If the nominator believes that an article can now be written that meets ] based on ] in sources that meet our ], they are encouraged to do so in their userspace and propose that article here. There is too much unpalatable history here for me to be comfortable unprotecting the article before seeing the new version. ] 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. No additional arguments in favor. `'] 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Restore'''. On my way out this evening I stood in a puddle. On returning home I looked it up in Misplaced Pages and there it was, an article about the puddle outside my house! Misplaced Pages is full to the brim with non notable articles and in serious danger of overflowing. ''Maybe'' Anarchopedia doesn't pass the Misplaced Pages notability test (I think it probably does). One thing is certain though, it is critical of Misplaced Pages, and of Jimmy Wales. Funny then, that mention of it here, i.e. within its own article, is forbidden. If I didn't know any better I'd be thinking that there are hidden agendas in operation; maybe there are. Personally I'm not that bothered one way or the other, but banning an article about this subject leaves Misplaced Pages open to the worst possible criticism, namely that it applies censorship. Whether or not censorship is actually applied is irrelevant. It will be ''perceived'' to be the case. You have been warned! ] 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Oh no, I just realised Britannica doesn't have an entry on this either! Neither does Encarta, Funk & Wagnalls, World Book, or ''The Greater Ozarks Bass Fishing Guide''! It's worse than I thought! ''Everyone'' is trying to censor you! It's a worldwide conspiracy!!!!1 Ok, ok, seriously... if you see other non-notable articles on WP, prod them or take them to AfD. The (true enough) fact that we do have some bad articles doesn't mean we need/want more of them. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Like the guy below, you haven't grasped the main point I'm trying to make, so let me try again. It's the fact that the article can't be (re)created that leaves Misplaced Pages open to criticism. It probably wouldn't matter for any other article, but in Anarchopedia, which I happen to think is crap anyway, we have a site that lambasts Misplaced Pages. Therefore it will be concluded that the reason for this "censorship" is not because of notability or the lack of it, but simply because of its critical stance. Now you might know this is not the case, ans so might I, but the world at large will see it differently. ] 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****So every site critical of Misplaced Pages should have an article in Misplaced Pages, for the sake of openness, and to avoid criticism on that count? Would this include, say, Joe Smith's sister's cousin's brother-in-law's blog at livejournal? We have no obligation to cover criticisms of Misplaced Pages ''unless'' they stem from an otherwise notable source; just insulting us shouldn't be sufficient reason to have an article within us. My girlfriend certainly hates Misplaced Pages, mainly for the amount of time I spend here, and I don't think she merits an article: Do you? ] 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Get a grip of yourself! It's the fact that the article can't even be created. Do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? ] 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Censorship isn't the same as deleting things for lacking notability. And as it is, there are still 479 links to anarchopedia from wikipedia, so whoever's doing this "censoring" is kind of sloppy. - ] 06:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse my own deletion''', valid AfD, valid G4. To the above commenter: the presence of non-notable article is not evidence in favor of allowing every non-notable article. Such a flawed "reverse slippery slope" argument would, if followed, make Misplaced Pages a depository for every bit of information that exists, a violation of WP:NOT. Furthermore, while Misplaced Pages is not censored ''for the protection of minors'', it is censored to eliminate ''unencyclopedic material''. This is good thing, and the major defense that prevents Misplaced Pages from becoming a blog. This kind of "censorship" is sometimes called "quality control." ] 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::To the above commenter, you obviously haven't understood the major point I was trying to make, and perhaps you should find out what quality control is ''actually'' about. Anyway, no worries. Like I said, I'm not that bothered one way or the other. ] 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion''', valid interpretation of the delete debate, the opinions of the site's owner on its encyclopaedic merit may not be fully objective. The temptation to speedy close any nomination which invokes censorship is overwhelming. <b>]</b> 14:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' for someone who is not bothered one way or the other, the author sure seems to care a lot about this page. ] 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|