Misplaced Pages

Talkback!

Cellebrum Technologies Limited

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)

Please reconsider the closing to this. You have ignored the major points made. The fact that this is not a news event was established by the provision of several major non news sources which demostrate lasting significance to this event. Please explain why these were ignored? and why you closed with a result that does not in any way reflect the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon White (talk • contribs)

I came here to say the same thing. It wasn't just a news item, it was a historical and noteworthy event. That is why it was kept the first three times someone tried to delete it. Just because it got news coverage, doesn't mean that is all there is to it. It was culturally significant for being the first time internet vigilantes did something on such a scale, the first and as far as I know the only major time that happened in that country. The overall reaction from the internet community, should be noted also. Dream Focus 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

i regard the present discussion at ANB a discussion, not an dispute. perhaps we might even work together on a suitable process--the result of trying shortcuts in controverted situations is usually more trouble than a previous public discussion would be. DGG (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dog poop girl

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dog poop girl. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. neon white talk 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog poop girl

Would you perhaps consider clarifying your closure further and explain exactly what you discounted and what you took into account to avoid any misunderstandings. The 4th nominator called it a "non-notable single event internet meme" which presumable points to WP:ONEEVENT which is about not writing biographies for people notable for one event. It doesn't preclude articles about the memes themselves thus the original nominator and per nom votes are out. Then there are the keep votes that argue mentions in big publications without actually saying what is mentioned. (Non-trivial is not just about the size, but also about the content) and delete votes by people like Jack Merridew who just call the article shitty or "something you'd find under "Weird News"." which obviously isn't based in policy. If several people suggest merging or redirecting as an alternative in the discussion a rough count of that and a check on the reasoning behind it should make the close a clear thing. - Mgm| 09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• If the sources mentioned it as part of a larger discussion on Internet vigilism, that would be the most convincing argument for me. If it's part of a larger thing in the sources, it should be covered in equal detail here. (I think User:Uncle G/On sources and content mentions this; not policy but a well-thought out page anyway)

Still, on a side note, "it's been kept before at AfD" is a convincing argument when the nominator doesn't explain what is different from the previous nomination (he called it non-notable and is if I read your response correct, one of the comments that was eventually discounted). When people renominate an article ad infinite it's usually because they hope to finally stack the vote the 'right' way. We should discourage people from renominating articles with bad reasonings or when there's no particular reason to assume the consensus has changed. I would have relisted the thing because after discounting, there wasn't much left. It would encourage people to use proper reasoning and actually look at the sources in detail. - Mgm| 09:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blogs can actually be reliable. The crucial point is not whether it is formatted in a blog format, but whether we can accurately determine who is responsible for the content. For example the Writer Beware Blog is maintained by the SFWA and the writers all confirm their involvement on their personal websites. In a case like that we can convincingly attribute the blog content to actual people (and experts) making it a reliable source. And blogs that are literally connected to official websites are also reliable sources for quotes of the person owning the site. Craphound.com is the official site of author Cory Doctorow and would be a useful source in articles about internet freedom despite its blog format, because we know the opinions expressed belong to the author. Oops, that's been enough lecturing (sorry!) I'm pretty sure you get my point after a post this long. - Mgm| 09:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Though relevant in this case, even passing mention isn't always a problem. I've seen articles in which passing mention is made of an actor winning an Oscar. Unless the publication is particularly unreliable and known for spreading false news, that would be a fine source (though it's probably easier to find a source that mentions this in combination with other stuff) - Mgm| 09:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neophytesoftware

FYI, this individual has ignored your warning and reinserted the rant yet again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)