- Electric Retard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
In January 2010 I made an attempt to write an article on the controversial webcomic Electric Retard on Wikipedia. Despite the fact that previous attempts by other users had been deleted, I had a go at writing the article because the webcomic's notability status seems to have increased over the last year or two, especially here in Australia. I've also noticed that while Electric Retard's notability status has been debated on by other Wikipedia editors, many other webcomic articles which are a lot less notable have not been challenged or removed. If they have to get the chop, why does Electric Retard have to? I have diplomatically discussed this matter with the Wikipedia user who removed the article. Hoping to hear a response soon. Cheers. LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this version is a significant improvement over the one deleted at the AfD debate, I would not object to overturning the G4 deletion and listing at AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question- Okay, so the wiki and blog website links may not be regarded as reliable sources, but how come a student newspaper website isn't? --LoofNeZorf (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Student newspapers have not received the reliable fact-checking and editorial control that reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines have received. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is complicated. Student newspapers can be used as reliable sources. Like all sources, there is leeway and hard and fast rules can be problematic. Some student newspapers will be more reliable than some actual newspapers, while many student newspapers will have zero oversight. In general, as I understand it, student newspapers at a university level can be used to source statements that are not severely controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "blog" isn't a fan's livejournal, but a webmagazine with multiple contributors and editorial control over its content, what would be considered a reliable source per WP:N. Like the Huffington Post, many blogs are reliable sources. But these are AfD arguments anyway. The point of this DRV is that this shouldn't have been deleted per CSD G4, the stated reason. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy deletion and send to AfD the most recent version shared little similarity with the version deleted at AfD, including citing independent sources which the earlier version didn't, and actually reading like a proper article rather than a quick attempt at a fan page, so WP:CSD#G4 was no appropriate. It should be for the community to discus the reliability of these sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an admin, when considering G4 deletions, I don't just look at how many words have been replaced or how the article is formatted, but at the greater concerns brought up at AfD discussions, like subject notability, sourcing, etc. The community has already discussed the subject, insisting on community adjudication on every questionable source is a myopic exercise when the information itself is non-controversial. If this was an article on a notable subject, I would not necessarily argue against the inclusion of sources of a similar caliber among others that clearly support notability. But that's not the case. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Cunard's assessment of the "sources", above. Absolutely zero chances that would pass an AFD. If the nominator is really interested in restoring this then a well-written userspace draft backed up with rock-solid reliable independent sources is the only way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a disgreement over the reliability of at least one of the sources, indicating that it not a foregone conclusion that this would be deleted at AfD. So per the letter and spirit of WP:CSD#G4 this should get a full hearing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The tone of the blog does not read like that of a reliable source. A glance at the blog's homepage (http://www.readplatform.com/) confirms that the website is not reliable. If other editors disagree with this interpretation, we should list this at AfD, but I do not see the point, as none of the sources are close to being reliable. Because none of the sources address the notability concerns raised at the AfD, I believe that this should remain deleted until sufficient sources surface. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that these are all AfD judgements. WP:CSD#G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." The second version, other than being about the same subject, was nowhere near "sufficiently identical" or "substantially identical" to the first version. The first version cited no independent sources, was badly written and did not contain most of the information that the second version did. All these factors mean that the article was significantly different and substantially improved, whether the improvement was sufficient is a job for the community to decide at AfD. DRV is not a second AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "[P]ages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" - see? I can selectively quote policy too! Yay! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed you can, and the snippet of policy you quote supports my argument. The reason for deletion was that it had no sources. There are now sources, therefore the reason for deleting no longer exists. (talk) (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the AfD, HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) wrote, "I don't see any reliable sources from a Google search, just mainly blogs and forums." This recreation has not rectified the sourcing concerns brought up at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD was just over 2 years ago in January 2008. The most recently deleted version contains information about what happened during 2008 (although it doesn't say when in 2008, it's likely to be after January) and 2009, for which sources could not possibly exist at the time of the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it does, yet unless you read minds you don't know the reason for deletion. Again, as an admin, you have to look at the substantive basis behind the editorial judgments to delete beyond an either-or sourcing scenario. There's a real topic behind the discussion, one that was not proven notable through coverage. The sources were insufficient because they were obscure (as in difficult to find) and referred to an even more obscure topic. Currently, the topic and the new sources don't address the notability concerns, regardless of the re-arrangement of the text. The obvious counterpoint is that we're here for DRV, a forum which doesn't require a substantive basis beyond mere policy interpretation, which means that a legalistic argument could conceivably be made to support any interpretation of deletion criteria. Which leaves us with the self-serving bullshit of quoting policy snippets to support a context du jour. When I consider your argument in view of the pragmatism of even having an RS/N/AfD policy, it falls apart. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, harsh. But you can't blame user Thryduulf for trying. --LoofNeZorf (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually do not have an opinion about whether the sources do actually show notability or not. That is not for deletion review to judge. The only question at deletion review of a speedy deletion is "Was the deletion correct?". The speedy deletion criteria states that the article must be both (1) substantially/significantly the same and (2) unimproved, and (3) that the reason for deletion must still apply. I have explained above that 1. The article was significantly different, 2. the article was substantially improved, and 3. the reason for deletion does not still apply. I am continuing to argue this case because I believe it is important that incorrect speedy deletions are not allowed to stand, as otherwise there is no point in having the strict criteria that we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD, as it is clear from the comments here that there is disagreement among established editors on the sourcing provided. Where there's a legitimate disagreement, AfD is the correct venue. Tim Song (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD was the correct venue, now DRV is. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD. Detailed discussion about the reliability of new sources does not belong here, but at AfD. Some sources were added since original version was deleted. One of the sources appears to be an online magazine noted in the mainstream media, see readplatform.com "about us". As for homepageDAILY, although labels itself "the world first global student newspaper", it's pretty clear it is not a student newspaper in the traditional sense of the term. Normally we deny student newspaper sources for WP:N purposes to avoid filling Wikipedia with issues of interest only to a school or university. But this is an on-line publication not related to any school, and at least one of the publishers is the well-known Richard Neville (writer); see [1] [2]. I would venture a guess that this is a reliable source about cultural matters, like comics. "Testing" for new sources is normally done at AfD not here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) for example. Pcap ping 10:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD, following WP:CSD#G4. It is different enough to warrant an AfD (as mentioned hpd is by Richard Neville and is used as a source on Roxy Jezel and Abbywinters.com, so does need longer discussion) but it is still very poor any editors interested in keeping this article need to do a lot more work on it quickly. (Emperor (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD per Thryduulf. This discussion is not about the sources, but about whether or not the speedy deletion of this article was in keeping with the guidelines. I cannot see the old version of the article, but I trust the analysis of Thryduulf and Emperor and I think it is better to err on the side of more community discussion, not less. AFD is the correct venue for that discussion. (Disclosure: I was directed to this discussion by a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Cerebellum (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In preparation for the AfD, I have asked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to review the reliability of the sources. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Readplatform_and_Homepagedaily
- Encourage userfication, and give User:LoofNeZorf a fair chance to build something before testing it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be the ideal option, it looks very shaky and restoring it and then deleting it if it isn't improved) seems an odd exercise. Better to leave it deleted until it can be improved enough to stand an AfD. Is this an option or would it be seen as second-guessing the AfD and we need to let the process run its course? (Emperor (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm all for the idea of letting it get tested at the AfD. --LoofNeZorf (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
