Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 4 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tagishsimon (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 5 March 2009 (there was not even any novelty in this pathetic story. It's an almost daily occurrence.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:56, 5 March 2009 by Tagishsimon (talk | contribs) (there was not even any novelty in this pathetic story. It's an almost daily occurrence.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2009 March 3 Deletion review archives: 2009 March 2009 March 5 >

4 March 2009

File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg

File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Missing FUR that can be included within a minute. File has been requested for undeletion more than three days ago by using the simple undelete image tag. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

YouTube cat abuse incident

YouTube cat abuse incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Inappropriate use of WP:NOTNEWS. This incident (if not the perpetrators) is without a shadow of a doubt notable, receiving extensive dedicated international print and television press coverage e.g. here, here, here and here, various petitions, significant grassroots action and remarkable backlash. Animal abuse happens all the time yes, but it's not every day it's filmed, published, (successfully) investigated by vigilantes and then proceeds to trial (which is ongoing).

In any case this deletion is clearly not supported by policy, which perhaps needs clarifying even if its intent seems perfectly clear (no routine coverage with examples given, notability doesn't transfer to individuals and breaking news treated like everything else). Editors need to remember that AfD debates are like mini-trials, for careful interpretation of existing policy, not sharing of opinions.

Normally I'm on the other side of the fence but this decision is very clearly wrong. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Good-faith decision by person closing debate recognizing that none of the !Keep discussion adequately refuted the WP:NOT#NEWS reasoning. WikiScrubber's argument doesn't either. THF (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • From AfD: "It has been argued that WP:NOTNEWS provides a rationale to delete this article. That policy states that "outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; this is clearly not such a topic. It stresses that articles on individuals notable for one event are to be avoided; that is precisely what this article does, in lieu of an article on the perpetrator(s)...Let's be very clear on this point: Notability is not subjective. The Irish Times and The Telegraph are prominent broadsheet newspapers, and without doubt reliable sources independent of this topic. The coverage of this event in the two articles is not trivial, and unambiguously fulfills the significance criterion. In short, this topic clearly meets the encyclopaedia's threshold for inclusion, the general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored." WikiScrubber (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You're cherrypicking. The same policy also talks about historic notability, something this five & dime incident lacks. Get over it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Has anyone noticed a problem? I haven't read the article shouldnt this article be temporarily restored while undergoing DRV (as should all articles undergoing DRV)? How else can I make an assessment? It seems there were legitmate arguments from both sides. Valoem 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Closing admins should evaluate deletion debates in light of our policies, which have a much broader participation than the !votes of any AFD. In this case, the policy rationales cited in the debate leaned heavily in favor of deletion, and the closing admin made a good call. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per THF and per closing admin: AfD is not a ballot, and the losing side lost because they did not refute WP:NOT#NEWS which deals with historical notability. On the assumption that WikiScrubber is contacting everyone involved in the AfD debate, s/he can hardly expect a much different result than a whole bunch of keeps & deletes as last time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per THF and CHL. GlassCobra 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and deletion - I see nothing wrong with the sysop's closure or the deletion itself. The WP:NOTNEWS argument is quite valid and the potential BLP issues were made clearly and repeatedly in the discussion by a majority of editors, which in my opinion established consensus beyond doubt. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If the event is significant, it's in the context of Internet vigilantism. Being significant in that regard is the only way to beat WP:NOTNEWS. Our Internet vigilantism article currently doesn't mention this incident, except as a redlink in the "See also" section. I would suggest that the sources are more than adequate to support a section in the 'Net vigilantism article. BLP issues mean that we have to be careful, not that we delete all content.

    Later, when the histories of the Internet are written, we can see which events were milestones in the development of Internet culture, and which ones were only of ephemeral interest. If this event lands int he former category, we can split it off then. For now, I think it should be covered in the more general article. Endorse deletion, recommend merge/redirect to Internet vigilantism. -GTBacchus 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse Deletion per the clear logic of not news. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Does not meet criteria for having an article. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: is there anything from anyone not involved in the AfD, per Tagishsimon's observation above? WikiScrubber (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion- I was going to bring this to DRV myself quite frankly. NOTNEWS does not apply in this case, given the worldwide scope of the coverage. BLP1E also does not apply, since pains were taken to make sure the person was not identified by name, and no biography was attempted in the article. The remaining Delete votes boiled down to lots of I don't like it's, which is not a valid reason for deletion. While I disagreed with the deletion of Boxxy, I at least could see that deletion as being based in policy. This one, on the other hand, I think the deleting admin went against both consensus and policy when they deleted the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What I see in your argument is failure to appreciate that you're trying to pitch a conclusion drawn from a set of guidelines - Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, against a policy set out at WP:NOT#NEWS. Unless or until you can mount a historic notability argument to refute WP:NOT#NEWS you are sunk. The fact that this was an interesting enough man-bites-dog story to be picked up widely as padding to sell advertising does not make it historically notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Just observing, the way his argument is stated, he addresses the policy WP:NOTNEWS by claiming that it doesn't apply. To be fair, a policy that doesn't apply fails to outweigh anything. Thus, the argument is really over whether NOTNEWS applies to this incident or not. To claim that it doesn't apply, it is necessary - as you say - to argue historical notability. However, we can't yet view the evolution of the Internet and its relationship to our culture in an historical light. Someone in the future will do that. Since it's not clear at this time that this event is an historically significant one, we can't just assume that it is. That's how I'm seeing it, anyway. -GTBacchus 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • overturn For the following reasons: a) There is no consensus for deletion. If anything the consensus is in the other direction. b) The NOTNEWS issue was addressed by people in the discussion such as Skomorokh. c) This was not a single news event anyways but part of a continuing and still ongoing series of events d) the sources included comments from academics e) given the massive coverage this has recieved and is still receiving the BLP argument doesn't hold any water. BLP is about not doing harm. Obviously we need to be careful about that. But BLP isn't about deleting well-sourced, internationally content that has a negative element. Moreover, the continuing international coverage means that if anything a neutrally written, factually accurate Wikpedia article will if anything do the exact opposite of harm by providing a sane account of everything that has happened and continues to happen. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per all above. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse the deletion without prejudice towards incorporating some elements of the article into Internet vigilantism per the rational arguments made by GTBacchus. Why we have administrators and not vote counters. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As previously uninvolved party, overturn to no consensus. I would've !voted "delete" on this, but I think it would be stretching things much too far to say there was a consensus to delete. I think the closer should not have disregarded such a large number of reasoned "keeps"; the admin tools are supposed to be a mop, not a gavel.—S Marshall /Cont 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - It was reported in the news mostly as a "weird but true" story. This is where i'm critical of wikipedia - people don't seem to understand the difference between an encyclopedia article (wikipedia) and a news article (wikinews). Add it to wikinews. --Phil1988 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion This is exactly the sort of thing BLP is about. Even the title is extremely in bad taste. MBisanz 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I voted reluctant keep last time, but I think the closure was proper. Firestorm 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion It wasn't just the fact that it made international news, but it showed a moment in history, when a large number of people on a very popular and influential internet site, came together to do some good. Has that ever happened before, for a case like this? Please read the cache of the article, before voting one way or the other. Dream Focus 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, people on websites such as 4chan have tipped off the authorities in previous incidents - generally shooting threats - so there was not even any novelty in this pathetic story. It's an almost daily occurrence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 4 Add topic