- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Controversial Reddit communities. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- /r/incels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Classic ONEEVENT - and a FORK of material that is already at the controversies of reddit page. Since this is dead there is absolutely no prospect of this being discussed or documented further EXCEPT in the context of discussing Reddit controversy. The correct location for this is therefore that page and I propose we delete this and redirect to Controversial Reddit communities Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect to Controversial Reddit communities, where it is already covered to the extent it needs to be. GNG is doubtful, and WP:NOPAGE seems relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- GNG clearly applies since the coverage in the articles used as sources are in-depth (e.g. thsy discuss the subreddit's ideology). The sources are all secondary sources in the form of major publications, and are generally considered reliable; they meet WP:NEWSORG easily, and aren't connected to r/incels. Some of my arguments against WP:NOPAGE status are present in my rational for keeping it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Subject isn't notable. I blame lazy journalism for this mess. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- You can't arbitrarily rescind notability because you think that sources that prove notability (via coverage) shouldn't have covered it. This stinks of
WP:JNN, as there is no coherent argument you are making for a lack of notability. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so I'll specify that I don't think the sources provided pass GNG. This certainly falls in ONEEVENT territory.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG is a seperate thing from
WP:ONEVENT; you aren't really making it clear which of the two you're talking about. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I assert the subject fails both
WP:EVENTCRIT and GNG. I don't have to choose one reason over the other. I thought it was enough to say that the subject isn't notable. I don't see a claim of notability. You've yet to explain what criteria you think this passes.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I explained why I think this passes WP:GNG in a reply to User:Rhododendrites. If you have an issue with that explanation, then please tell me about it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 08:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I assert the subject fails both
WP:EVENTCRIT and GNG. I don't have to choose one reason over the other. I thought it was enough to say that the subject isn't notable. I don't see a claim of notability. You've yet to explain what criteria you think this passes.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG is a seperate thing from
WP:ONEVENT; you aren't really making it clear which of the two you're talking about. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so I'll specify that I don't think the sources provided pass GNG. This certainly falls in ONEEVENT territory.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- You can't arbitrarily rescind notability because you think that sources that prove notability (via coverage) shouldn't have covered it. This stinks of
WP:JNN, as there is no coherent argument you are making for a lack of notability. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As the creator of the article, I will go into my reasoning for keeping it later or elsewhere (e.g. in replying to other users' views), but I feel the need to address the argument that Spartaz has made for its deletion. Firstly, as a response to the claims about WP:ONEVENT, two of the article's sources are from before r/incels was banned. Secondly, Spartaz claims that the article is "a FORK of material that is already at the controversies of reddit page". The article contains significant new content about the community; the text is probably more than twice the length of the section of that page. Thirdly, Spartaz has claimed that "Since this is dead there is absolutely no prospect of this being discussed or documented further EXCEPT in the context of discussing Reddit controversy". This is a classic WP:DEFUNCTS argument, and also qualifies as WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. It is certainly possible that there may be more coverage of it, especially if one of the forums that served as its successor becomes prominent. "The correct location for this is therefore that page"; no it is not; I feel the level of importance of the event clearly merits a seperate page. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Controversial Reddit communities § Incels - There's no real reson for it to have its own article per nom; yes, there are some sources not about its banning, but the article is only really about its banning. However, the current section on Controversial Reddit communities could do with some of the extra info and sources, as it is kind of weak outside the banning bit, and the community was already controversial before being banned. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- In response to your assertion that the "the article is only really about its banning", and that the article is weak outside the section about the banning, I would say that maybe ~40-50% of the article is about the banning, and much of the detail in the article is outside of the banning. When writing it, I thought that the section about the banning was weak, and I still believe it lacks a certain level of depth. Additionally, if you assert that the article is only really about the banning, then that can be solved by editing it to incorporate additional content and sources, not deleting it. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have explained this better. There are no events of note or indications of relevance in the article outside its banning; the extra detail just gives some (IMO important) background info. If the community was not banned, then there would not be enough content (in both current text and sources) to make an article. In fact, you could justify a similar article from any other Reddit community, and probably find two sources on a lot of them as well.
User:Axisixa
[talk]
[contribs]
08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not all articles are about discrete "events"; many just describe the properties of a group, object, item, person, etc. This isn't relevant to the article's notability. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have explained this better. There are no events of note or indications of relevance in the article outside its banning; the extra detail just gives some (IMO important) background info. If the community was not banned, then there would not be enough content (in both current text and sources) to make an article. In fact, you could justify a similar article from any other Reddit community, and probably find two sources on a lot of them as well.
User:Axisixa
[talk]
[contribs]
08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- In response to your assertion that the "the article is only really about its banning", and that the article is weak outside the section about the banning, I would say that maybe ~40-50% of the article is about the banning, and much of the detail in the article is outside of the banning. When writing it, I thought that the section about the banning was weak, and I still believe it lacks a certain level of depth. Additionally, if you assert that the article is only really about the banning, then that can be solved by editing it to incorporate additional content and sources, not deleting it. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Controversial Reddit communities § Incels and add additional content to the main Reddit page if weight is found. Per comments on talk page echoing all of the above, I found the creation of this article undue. Effectively instead of including in the existing section of Controversial Reddit Communities, a new article was span off for an extra half paragraph about it being closed. Koncorde ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per preceding comments ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 12:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per Koncorde. Stifle ( talk) 14:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per everyone else. Sro23 ( talk) 21:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strong redirect/merge, or Weak keep per reasons listed above. Although it's sorta notable, I think it should probably just be part of that Controversial Reddit communities page. Redirect (but don't delete.) Paintspot Infez ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Controversial Reddit communities. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- /r/incels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Classic ONEEVENT - and a FORK of material that is already at the controversies of reddit page. Since this is dead there is absolutely no prospect of this being discussed or documented further EXCEPT in the context of discussing Reddit controversy. The correct location for this is therefore that page and I propose we delete this and redirect to Controversial Reddit communities Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect to Controversial Reddit communities, where it is already covered to the extent it needs to be. GNG is doubtful, and WP:NOPAGE seems relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- GNG clearly applies since the coverage in the articles used as sources are in-depth (e.g. thsy discuss the subreddit's ideology). The sources are all secondary sources in the form of major publications, and are generally considered reliable; they meet WP:NEWSORG easily, and aren't connected to r/incels. Some of my arguments against WP:NOPAGE status are present in my rational for keeping it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Subject isn't notable. I blame lazy journalism for this mess. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- You can't arbitrarily rescind notability because you think that sources that prove notability (via coverage) shouldn't have covered it. This stinks of
WP:JNN, as there is no coherent argument you are making for a lack of notability. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so I'll specify that I don't think the sources provided pass GNG. This certainly falls in ONEEVENT territory.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG is a seperate thing from
WP:ONEVENT; you aren't really making it clear which of the two you're talking about. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I assert the subject fails both
WP:EVENTCRIT and GNG. I don't have to choose one reason over the other. I thought it was enough to say that the subject isn't notable. I don't see a claim of notability. You've yet to explain what criteria you think this passes.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I explained why I think this passes WP:GNG in a reply to User:Rhododendrites. If you have an issue with that explanation, then please tell me about it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 08:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I assert the subject fails both
WP:EVENTCRIT and GNG. I don't have to choose one reason over the other. I thought it was enough to say that the subject isn't notable. I don't see a claim of notability. You've yet to explain what criteria you think this passes.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG is a seperate thing from
WP:ONEVENT; you aren't really making it clear which of the two you're talking about. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so I'll specify that I don't think the sources provided pass GNG. This certainly falls in ONEEVENT territory.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- You can't arbitrarily rescind notability because you think that sources that prove notability (via coverage) shouldn't have covered it. This stinks of
WP:JNN, as there is no coherent argument you are making for a lack of notability. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As the creator of the article, I will go into my reasoning for keeping it later or elsewhere (e.g. in replying to other users' views), but I feel the need to address the argument that Spartaz has made for its deletion. Firstly, as a response to the claims about WP:ONEVENT, two of the article's sources are from before r/incels was banned. Secondly, Spartaz claims that the article is "a FORK of material that is already at the controversies of reddit page". The article contains significant new content about the community; the text is probably more than twice the length of the section of that page. Thirdly, Spartaz has claimed that "Since this is dead there is absolutely no prospect of this being discussed or documented further EXCEPT in the context of discussing Reddit controversy". This is a classic WP:DEFUNCTS argument, and also qualifies as WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. It is certainly possible that there may be more coverage of it, especially if one of the forums that served as its successor becomes prominent. "The correct location for this is therefore that page"; no it is not; I feel the level of importance of the event clearly merits a seperate page. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Controversial Reddit communities § Incels - There's no real reson for it to have its own article per nom; yes, there are some sources not about its banning, but the article is only really about its banning. However, the current section on Controversial Reddit communities could do with some of the extra info and sources, as it is kind of weak outside the banning bit, and the community was already controversial before being banned. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- In response to your assertion that the "the article is only really about its banning", and that the article is weak outside the section about the banning, I would say that maybe ~40-50% of the article is about the banning, and much of the detail in the article is outside of the banning. When writing it, I thought that the section about the banning was weak, and I still believe it lacks a certain level of depth. Additionally, if you assert that the article is only really about the banning, then that can be solved by editing it to incorporate additional content and sources, not deleting it. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have explained this better. There are no events of note or indications of relevance in the article outside its banning; the extra detail just gives some (IMO important) background info. If the community was not banned, then there would not be enough content (in both current text and sources) to make an article. In fact, you could justify a similar article from any other Reddit community, and probably find two sources on a lot of them as well.
User:Axisixa
[talk]
[contribs]
08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not all articles are about discrete "events"; many just describe the properties of a group, object, item, person, etc. This isn't relevant to the article's notability. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have explained this better. There are no events of note or indications of relevance in the article outside its banning; the extra detail just gives some (IMO important) background info. If the community was not banned, then there would not be enough content (in both current text and sources) to make an article. In fact, you could justify a similar article from any other Reddit community, and probably find two sources on a lot of them as well.
User:Axisixa
[talk]
[contribs]
08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- In response to your assertion that the "the article is only really about its banning", and that the article is weak outside the section about the banning, I would say that maybe ~40-50% of the article is about the banning, and much of the detail in the article is outside of the banning. When writing it, I thought that the section about the banning was weak, and I still believe it lacks a certain level of depth. Additionally, if you assert that the article is only really about the banning, then that can be solved by editing it to incorporate additional content and sources, not deleting it. --
Hazarasp (
talk)
07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Controversial Reddit communities § Incels and add additional content to the main Reddit page if weight is found. Per comments on talk page echoing all of the above, I found the creation of this article undue. Effectively instead of including in the existing section of Controversial Reddit Communities, a new article was span off for an extra half paragraph about it being closed. Koncorde ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per preceding comments ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 12:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per Koncorde. Stifle ( talk) 14:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per everyone else. Sro23 ( talk) 21:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strong redirect/merge, or Weak keep per reasons listed above. Although it's sorta notable, I think it should probably just be part of that Controversial Reddit communities page. Redirect (but don't delete.) Paintspot Infez ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.