Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs) press |
|||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
: This is not an argument, I could find a great many Featured Articles on topics you have never heard about. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 09:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
: This is not an argument, I could find a great many Featured Articles on topics you have never heard about. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 09:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just observing the double standard. The author admits that this person is relatively unknown, but accuses Wikipedia of discrimination for deleting the article ''of a relatively unknown person''. Like you, the only reason the author thinks this article is necessary is because politics and social justice. I've already comment that we keep the article elsewhere, but unlike you I don't behave like commander-in-chief of Wikipedia and so accept that others will have different views and that a consensus will form accordingly. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
::I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just observing the double standard. The author admits that this person is relatively unknown, but accuses Wikipedia of discrimination for deleting the article ''of a relatively unknown person''. Like you, the only reason the author thinks this article is necessary is because politics and social justice. I've already comment that we keep the article elsewhere, but unlike you I don't behave like commander-in-chief of Wikipedia and so accept that others will have different views and that a consensus will form accordingly. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: 1) the purpose of an encyclopedia is to teach about things, often obscure ones. |
|||
::: 2) yes you are arguing for deletion, and you are also letting far-Right talking point slip. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Contested deletion == |
== Contested deletion == |
Revision as of 12:14, 29 April 2019
Media mention
The deletion of this page has been mentioned in an article in the Washington Post. Accordingly, I expect some culture battles to be fought here.
Cstaffa (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here too: [1]. I have restored the article, it is becoming notable enough to pass the criterias just from discussions about its deletion. This is an embarassment for Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Such reportage wouldn't make the person notable but rather the deletion of an article about them, which is a different title altogether. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Funnily enough we even have a policy covering exactly that scenario... — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Such reportage wouldn't make the person notable but rather the deletion of an article about them, which is a different title altogether. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
You know, I would like to spend some time thinking through the sources again and working collegiately on this article. Unfortunately it has the attention of the "Usual Suspects", who are here within minutes of this article being restored, more interested in finding reasons to attack individuals, including creepily researching their social media profiles, ceaselessly finding reasons to make contributions here a non-stop ranty argument, and will take any slim evidence to take us to dramah boards. No thanks, I don't want my off-wiki data being connected to my past 10 years of contributions to this project.
Until we have a system to recognise the most problematic individuals that make Wikipedia a f**king s**thole for people who are openly interested in the fair representation of women or other minorities on Wikipedia, we will never fix the systemic bias that exists here.
This article about Phelps, and the appalling bad faith treatment of contributors, serves as an excellent case study of how broken Wikipedia remains. --Fæ (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are "usual subjects" among the professionally outraged, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- How tone deaf you are. "Professionally outraged" is how right wing extremists have marginalised and derided the opinions of feminists, integrationists and pro-LGBT thinkers for decades. "Professionally outraged" is equivalent to the dichotomy of praising men as masculine when they express anger, while any woman daring to be angry is derided as a scold. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM, of course; this page is exclusively for discussing the article contents and nothing else, however much context may interest us. ——SerialNumber54129 09:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- How tone deaf you are. "Professionally outraged" is how right wing extremists have marginalised and derided the opinions of feminists, integrationists and pro-LGBT thinkers for decades. "Professionally outraged" is equivalent to the dichotomy of praising men as masculine when they express anger, while any woman daring to be angry is derided as a scold. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's telling that the Washington Post are happy to run an article slating Wikipedia for not covering Clarice Phelps, yet they have precisely zero coverage on her outside of this issue. Pot calling the kettle black, perhaps? If they and others actually did some in depth coverage of her, or an interview, then there would be no debate and we would not be having this discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because...
Under restructuring, having fresh attention due to a recent press article. If the usual suspects could hold off for a couple of days, we might actually have a good faith discussion about it. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- The other three discussions weren't good enough? ——SerialNumber54129 09:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised to see this? - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because you personally hate me? Because that's how you come over every time you write something deliberately nasty about me. --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because you personally hate me? Because that's how you come over every time you write something deliberately nasty about me. --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Comedy
Isn't it funny that an article chastising Wikipedians for deleting this article, opens up with You’ve probably never heard of Clarice Phelps
. So why exactly would Wikipedia have an article on someone nobody knows? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is not an argument, I could find a great many Featured Articles on topics you have never heard about. Rama (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just observing the double standard. The author admits that this person is relatively unknown, but accuses Wikipedia of discrimination for deleting the article of a relatively unknown person. Like you, the only reason the author thinks this article is necessary is because politics and social justice. I've already comment that we keep the article elsewhere, but unlike you I don't behave like commander-in-chief of Wikipedia and so accept that others will have different views and that a consensus will form accordingly. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- 1) the purpose of an encyclopedia is to teach about things, often obscure ones.
- 2) yes you are arguing for deletion, and you are also letting far-Right talking point slip. Rama (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just observing the double standard. The author admits that this person is relatively unknown, but accuses Wikipedia of discrimination for deleting the article of a relatively unknown person. Like you, the only reason the author thinks this article is necessary is because politics and social justice. I've already comment that we keep the article elsewhere, but unlike you I don't behave like commander-in-chief of Wikipedia and so accept that others will have different views and that a consensus will form accordingly. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because there are many sources establishing notability, because there is a suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria on this case, and because media attention on this article --Rama (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)