→Contested deletion: new section |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
This article about Phelps, and the appalling bad faith treatment of contributors, serves as an excellent case study of how broken Wikipedia remains. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
This article about Phelps, and the appalling bad faith treatment of contributors, serves as an excellent case study of how broken Wikipedia remains. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:59, 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. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:03, 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)
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)