- 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 keep. There is no consensus to delete, so if merge is preferable, I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 01:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems a case of WP:NOTNEWS, doesn't seem to have had lasting effects or gotten continued coverage beyond a couple weeks in January 2013 and a 2021 paragraph mention in a broader article about Wikipedia edit wars. As far as WP:EVENTCRIT goes, it does not have enduring historical significance, and doesn't seem to even have attracted a lot of coverage at the time. My Before search found little more, the Signpost notes one more contemporary news article (in in the media that is no longer live) and gizmodo gives it a few sentences in 2019, and slate in Feb 2013 gives it a sentence or two. Not enough, IMO to establish notability when considering the above policies. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. Nothing at that list about this subject. While I agree this page doesn't seem to meet criteria for standalone article, there's more than adequate sourcing for a merge to the list. BusterD ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep—although I'm the author of the article. I think that
this slate article from a month afterward showed that it was at least drawn out, and multiple articles long after the controversy give it mentions whenever they talk about wikipedia edit wars. However, I'm fine if this is merged too.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (
they/them)
17:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- To elaborate,
WP:PERSISTENCE states that
If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.
Indeed, when Wikipedia edit wars are covered now, you'll often find a mention of this incident. And i'm not sure what "relatively short" means inNotable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
from WP:PERSISTENCE, but coverage of the controversy lasted for over a month. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- To elaborate,
WP:PERSISTENCE states that
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: It is proper to defend one's own work; the wikipedian wouldn't have built such work without good intentions. The work is well cited, to the extent it could be. This issue to me is
WP:NEVENT, where this subject fails
WP:PERSISTENCE and
WP:LASTING. If merge is the concluded outcome, I suggest
User:Theleekycauldron perform the merge themselves to preserve the best material.
BusterD (
talk)
18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ BusterD: I'd be happy to perform the merge if that is the consensus. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 19:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- lol
Lightburst (
talk)
18:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- i'm not understanding? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm likewise intrigued. BusterD ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep ( edit conflict) Notable and telling to show the kind of pedantic arguments which happen in the backrooms of the project. The comic strip is a nice measure of notability. Also I like it because it made me spit my coffee out. Lightburst ( talk) 18:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Shame on me. I failed to say what User:Lightburst has kindly pointed out. The page is a clever piece of writing and the cartoon does matter. I'm amenable to changing my !vote if argument goes towards keep. Sure could use an article rescue squadron here. User:Dream Focus is fully capable of correctly sourcing a random lamppost (for which I'd be forced to assert keep). Kudos to User:Theleekycauldron for making me laugh today too. No unworthy thing. I hope Lightburst's keyboard is ok. BusterD ( talk) 19:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/wikipedia-conflict-map-flame-wars/ mentions it as one of the Wikipedia flame wars, and links to a long detailed article about just it at
Wikipedians wage war over a capital “I” in a “Star Trek” film that was Published Jan 30, 2013. They also link to another article Published Feb 21, 2013 about how it messed up Google search results:
That epic Wikipedia “Star Trek” edit is still screwing up Google. Slate mentions it
[1] in a 2019 article, linking to their detail article about it back in 2013.
[2] So even after it happened, people still mention it at times, it considered a notable event.
Dream Focus
19:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- The entirety of the 2019 slate mention you link is
a 40,000-word debate on the Star Trek Into Darkness talk page about whether the word into should be capitalized.
and it's misrepresentation to describe their 2013 article as a "detail[sic] article" when the entirety of coverage there isthe Wikipedia page for the film has become a battle ground for grammatical debate. Certain Wikipedia users maintain that the into in the title should be capitalized; others are certain that it should be lowercase. Their fervor is misplaced
. To date, the summation of substantive coverage includes two published on January 30, and one published three weeks later. That's hardly even a significant burst of coverage at the time, but there has not been sustained substantive coverage. The fact thatpeople still mention it at times
does not support your later claim that it is a notable event. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)- Excuse me. That article was about the issue of the title, with only part of it mentioning the Wikipedia argument about it, I didn't read it through as I should have. The DailyDot articles were however significant coverage about this, and published 22 days apart. And I do believe it is notable if its mentioned years later, even if briefly. Dream Focus 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- The entirety of the 2019 slate mention you link is
-
Tor.com is a reliable source. I found significant coverage there.
Grammar Fight! Star Trek Into Darkness Title Sparks Tussle on Wikipedia
Dream Focus
20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good find, but it still faces the issue that it dates to January 31, 2013, still not demonstrating persistence of coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment On advice of counsel, I've added content about the controversy to the List of Wikipedia controversies—merged or not, it should probably be mentioned there anyway. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Move to "2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness Controversy"
Elemimele (
talk)
20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- oh god, not again...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (
they/them)
20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- If one is making joke suggestions to move this, Randall's solution (
[3]) seems the obvious solution.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- My comment was intended lightheartedly. My serious opinion is keep as per User:Randy Kryn below; becoming the subject of an xkcd cartoon is a very unusual event, indicating unusual notability. The current article shows how Wikipedia disputes can influence the world in a way that has never before happened with an encyclopaedia. In some ways, this was a world first. Elemimele ( talk) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- If one is making joke suggestions to move this, Randall's solution (
[3]) seems the obvious solution.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- oh god, not again...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (
they/them)
20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. I marked this article as reviewed because I found it notable enough with significant coverage, but on second thought, it's just one of many Wikipedia controversies that could easily be part of the list. I would say keep it as an independent article if the article was longer and the topic was more significant, but this is just a larger than usual internal conflict on Wikipedia that got the media's attention. While I'm not fully opposed to keeping, I find merging a better choice. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Is this really a controversy per se? It's always mentioned in RSes in the context of other edit wars, so perhaps a new article List of Wikipedia edit wars should be created with this and other such events. I would not be opposed to a keep or a merge to List of Wikipedia controversies but it just seems a bit off to me. eviolite (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to the new summary at List of Wikipedia controversies#2013 which Theleekycauldron just added, so the merge is already effectively done. (Nice work.) That's all the attention this dispute deserves. -- Lockley ( talk) 01:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, an encyclopedic and very well sourced example of how the world's best, largest, and arguably strangest encyclopedia - when questioning how it grew and succeeded despite a framework which, as someone famously said, cannot work in theory but only in practice - runs behind the scenery, where the wild things roam. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge just not the quality or quantity of sources neded for a standalone article.There's very little to say about the dispute itself. That said, it does clearly qualify for an entry on the List of Wikipedia controversies. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per reasoning above. The article is linked to at List of Wikipedia controversies now, I don't think a merge would be beneficial due to the length of that article. It is beneficial to our readers to keep this so the list article doesn't become too convoluted, but people can click through to find more information on this article if they wish. NemesisAT ( talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. Are we looking at the same sources here? Setting aside the one ABOUTSELF source and the xkcd reference, we have two from right when it happened, one of them rather short; one from a month later, a follow-up to the longer of those two; and then two paragraphs in a listicle published this year. I don't see how any of that qualifies as persistent coverage. Think for a moment about if this weren't a Wikipedia-related topic. We routinely delete articles on non-notable hashtags and memes that have received far more coverage than is demonstrated here. Usually every time a new big hashtag emerges, every publication looking for some clicks will write an article about that hashtag, and then may call back to it later on. We could also make the case for articles on a lot of r/AskReddit threads, a lot of AMAs on r/IAmA, and a lot of viral Tumblr posts. But none of these things enjoy in-depth coverage in the moment, nor enduring coverage afterward. The first Daily Dot article, which seems to have given the longest coverage, does summarize the perspectives here, but not much more than in your standard "See what people are tweeting!" article. It doesn't have much depth to it beyond that. If this is to be kept, and we aren't granting special status to Wikipedia-related content, then we're opening the door to articles on every Twitter, Reddit, or Tumblr thread with a comparable level of coverage. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 18:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I remember this controversy, and don't think the article should be deleted. killer bee 03:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as it's a notable controversy. The article is too long to be discussed for merger on a AfD. desmay ( talk) 06:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per the
law of holes, "when you're in a hole, stop digging!". What Wikipedians like to do is fill the hole in and then dig it again. Repeatedly. It boosts everyone's edit count but it's not very productive is it? As people already have come up with some sensible ideas above and none of them require deletion, we seem to be done here. See also
WP:INTODARKNESS.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
12:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Andrew Davidson, would you clarify which
speedy keep criterion this meets?
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think he meant strong keep, but I'm not sure. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Andrew Davidson, would you clarify which
speedy keep criterion this meets?
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies#2013, where it is adequately covered. Despite that many links above, there are a total of three sources here. [4] [5] [6]. Two are published by the Daily Dot, one by Slate, and all published in a span of a couple weeks. All of the other sources linked (I just opened them all) are single sentence mentions and don't help notability. [Internal Wikipedia stuff] + [something fun/quirky] = Almost impossible to delete at AfD, I'm finding, regardless of sourcing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2013 covers it perfectly well, and a few more sentences there would be fine too if someone wants to merge a bit more, but the main article is somewhat wordy itself and doesn't need to be standalone per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92 Talk 22:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as others have said, this is definitely notable enough to be a Wikipedia article, with sources covering the argument. If keep fails then I'd suggest to make a redirect. Heythereimaguy ( talk) 00:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Re-direct to list of lamest edit wars - Wikipedia has had many disputes over article titles. PS: I hope an article isn't created about this AfD. GoodDay ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep We have two enduring sources 2016 and 2021 (the 2016 source was just added by me). There may be more missed, and more in the future, 8 years is too soon to declare it a dead item when some sources continue to reference it over time. --
Green
C
05:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, the 2016 source in question brings up the controversy as a single-sentence example brought up in a larger point about Wikipedia's style of discussion and consensus—but I think it's time for this discussion to come to a close, however that comes down. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 07:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's true but the entire article is about Wikipedia, the author chose a select few case examples to illustrate in the opening paragraphs for the points he would make further into the article. -- Green C 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak merge and redirect. Borderline notability and I think it fails on the non-notable side; I think the coverage at List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2013 is sufficient - it can be expanded with what we have here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep based on the sourcing, but a merge is not a terrible outcome and should be handled as a talk page discussion if desired. Barely anyone here is arguing for outright deletion, which is good, because if we did that, I suspect Randall Munroe might pen another XKCD about how Wikipedia deletes things that end up making his older cartoons less funny, only it would be far wittier than the potential summary I've done. Jclemens ( talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Into List of Wikipedia controversies. Good read, but lasting coverage seems to be all in passing. On a related note I actually think there's enough coverage of edit wars in the news and in books to support the creation of an article about edit warring itself (see Gizmodo, Vox, BBC, The Economist, Stack Overflow, Springer, Cambridge). DigitalIceAge ( talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I may go there next! theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This is has been up for eight days now; isn't it time for a close? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Reply It will be closed when it's closed. Please allow the process to work itself out. BusterD ( talk) 00:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I wasn't sure if AfDs can run over until I checked the old page. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:05, 2 November 2021 (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 keep. There is no consensus to delete, so if merge is preferable, I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 01:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems a case of WP:NOTNEWS, doesn't seem to have had lasting effects or gotten continued coverage beyond a couple weeks in January 2013 and a 2021 paragraph mention in a broader article about Wikipedia edit wars. As far as WP:EVENTCRIT goes, it does not have enduring historical significance, and doesn't seem to even have attracted a lot of coverage at the time. My Before search found little more, the Signpost notes one more contemporary news article (in in the media that is no longer live) and gizmodo gives it a few sentences in 2019, and slate in Feb 2013 gives it a sentence or two. Not enough, IMO to establish notability when considering the above policies. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. Nothing at that list about this subject. While I agree this page doesn't seem to meet criteria for standalone article, there's more than adequate sourcing for a merge to the list. BusterD ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep—although I'm the author of the article. I think that
this slate article from a month afterward showed that it was at least drawn out, and multiple articles long after the controversy give it mentions whenever they talk about wikipedia edit wars. However, I'm fine if this is merged too.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (
they/them)
17:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- To elaborate,
WP:PERSISTENCE states that
If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.
Indeed, when Wikipedia edit wars are covered now, you'll often find a mention of this incident. And i'm not sure what "relatively short" means inNotable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
from WP:PERSISTENCE, but coverage of the controversy lasted for over a month. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- To elaborate,
WP:PERSISTENCE states that
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: It is proper to defend one's own work; the wikipedian wouldn't have built such work without good intentions. The work is well cited, to the extent it could be. This issue to me is
WP:NEVENT, where this subject fails
WP:PERSISTENCE and
WP:LASTING. If merge is the concluded outcome, I suggest
User:Theleekycauldron perform the merge themselves to preserve the best material.
BusterD (
talk)
18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ BusterD: I'd be happy to perform the merge if that is the consensus. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 19:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- lol
Lightburst (
talk)
18:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- i'm not understanding? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm likewise intrigued. BusterD ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep ( edit conflict) Notable and telling to show the kind of pedantic arguments which happen in the backrooms of the project. The comic strip is a nice measure of notability. Also I like it because it made me spit my coffee out. Lightburst ( talk) 18:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Shame on me. I failed to say what User:Lightburst has kindly pointed out. The page is a clever piece of writing and the cartoon does matter. I'm amenable to changing my !vote if argument goes towards keep. Sure could use an article rescue squadron here. User:Dream Focus is fully capable of correctly sourcing a random lamppost (for which I'd be forced to assert keep). Kudos to User:Theleekycauldron for making me laugh today too. No unworthy thing. I hope Lightburst's keyboard is ok. BusterD ( talk) 19:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/wikipedia-conflict-map-flame-wars/ mentions it as one of the Wikipedia flame wars, and links to a long detailed article about just it at
Wikipedians wage war over a capital “I” in a “Star Trek” film that was Published Jan 30, 2013. They also link to another article Published Feb 21, 2013 about how it messed up Google search results:
That epic Wikipedia “Star Trek” edit is still screwing up Google. Slate mentions it
[1] in a 2019 article, linking to their detail article about it back in 2013.
[2] So even after it happened, people still mention it at times, it considered a notable event.
Dream Focus
19:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- The entirety of the 2019 slate mention you link is
a 40,000-word debate on the Star Trek Into Darkness talk page about whether the word into should be capitalized.
and it's misrepresentation to describe their 2013 article as a "detail[sic] article" when the entirety of coverage there isthe Wikipedia page for the film has become a battle ground for grammatical debate. Certain Wikipedia users maintain that the into in the title should be capitalized; others are certain that it should be lowercase. Their fervor is misplaced
. To date, the summation of substantive coverage includes two published on January 30, and one published three weeks later. That's hardly even a significant burst of coverage at the time, but there has not been sustained substantive coverage. The fact thatpeople still mention it at times
does not support your later claim that it is a notable event. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)- Excuse me. That article was about the issue of the title, with only part of it mentioning the Wikipedia argument about it, I didn't read it through as I should have. The DailyDot articles were however significant coverage about this, and published 22 days apart. And I do believe it is notable if its mentioned years later, even if briefly. Dream Focus 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- The entirety of the 2019 slate mention you link is
-
Tor.com is a reliable source. I found significant coverage there.
Grammar Fight! Star Trek Into Darkness Title Sparks Tussle on Wikipedia
Dream Focus
20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good find, but it still faces the issue that it dates to January 31, 2013, still not demonstrating persistence of coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment On advice of counsel, I've added content about the controversy to the List of Wikipedia controversies—merged or not, it should probably be mentioned there anyway. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Move to "2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness Controversy"
Elemimele (
talk)
20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- oh god, not again...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (
they/them)
20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- If one is making joke suggestions to move this, Randall's solution (
[3]) seems the obvious solution.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- My comment was intended lightheartedly. My serious opinion is keep as per User:Randy Kryn below; becoming the subject of an xkcd cartoon is a very unusual event, indicating unusual notability. The current article shows how Wikipedia disputes can influence the world in a way that has never before happened with an encyclopaedia. In some ways, this was a world first. Elemimele ( talk) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- If one is making joke suggestions to move this, Randall's solution (
[3]) seems the obvious solution.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- oh god, not again...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (
they/them)
20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. I marked this article as reviewed because I found it notable enough with significant coverage, but on second thought, it's just one of many Wikipedia controversies that could easily be part of the list. I would say keep it as an independent article if the article was longer and the topic was more significant, but this is just a larger than usual internal conflict on Wikipedia that got the media's attention. While I'm not fully opposed to keeping, I find merging a better choice. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Is this really a controversy per se? It's always mentioned in RSes in the context of other edit wars, so perhaps a new article List of Wikipedia edit wars should be created with this and other such events. I would not be opposed to a keep or a merge to List of Wikipedia controversies but it just seems a bit off to me. eviolite (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to the new summary at List of Wikipedia controversies#2013 which Theleekycauldron just added, so the merge is already effectively done. (Nice work.) That's all the attention this dispute deserves. -- Lockley ( talk) 01:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, an encyclopedic and very well sourced example of how the world's best, largest, and arguably strangest encyclopedia - when questioning how it grew and succeeded despite a framework which, as someone famously said, cannot work in theory but only in practice - runs behind the scenery, where the wild things roam. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge just not the quality or quantity of sources neded for a standalone article.There's very little to say about the dispute itself. That said, it does clearly qualify for an entry on the List of Wikipedia controversies. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per reasoning above. The article is linked to at List of Wikipedia controversies now, I don't think a merge would be beneficial due to the length of that article. It is beneficial to our readers to keep this so the list article doesn't become too convoluted, but people can click through to find more information on this article if they wish. NemesisAT ( talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. Are we looking at the same sources here? Setting aside the one ABOUTSELF source and the xkcd reference, we have two from right when it happened, one of them rather short; one from a month later, a follow-up to the longer of those two; and then two paragraphs in a listicle published this year. I don't see how any of that qualifies as persistent coverage. Think for a moment about if this weren't a Wikipedia-related topic. We routinely delete articles on non-notable hashtags and memes that have received far more coverage than is demonstrated here. Usually every time a new big hashtag emerges, every publication looking for some clicks will write an article about that hashtag, and then may call back to it later on. We could also make the case for articles on a lot of r/AskReddit threads, a lot of AMAs on r/IAmA, and a lot of viral Tumblr posts. But none of these things enjoy in-depth coverage in the moment, nor enduring coverage afterward. The first Daily Dot article, which seems to have given the longest coverage, does summarize the perspectives here, but not much more than in your standard "See what people are tweeting!" article. It doesn't have much depth to it beyond that. If this is to be kept, and we aren't granting special status to Wikipedia-related content, then we're opening the door to articles on every Twitter, Reddit, or Tumblr thread with a comparable level of coverage. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 18:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I remember this controversy, and don't think the article should be deleted. killer bee 03:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as it's a notable controversy. The article is too long to be discussed for merger on a AfD. desmay ( talk) 06:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per the
law of holes, "when you're in a hole, stop digging!". What Wikipedians like to do is fill the hole in and then dig it again. Repeatedly. It boosts everyone's edit count but it's not very productive is it? As people already have come up with some sensible ideas above and none of them require deletion, we seem to be done here. See also
WP:INTODARKNESS.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
12:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Andrew Davidson, would you clarify which
speedy keep criterion this meets?
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think he meant strong keep, but I'm not sure. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Andrew Davidson, would you clarify which
speedy keep criterion this meets?
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies#2013, where it is adequately covered. Despite that many links above, there are a total of three sources here. [4] [5] [6]. Two are published by the Daily Dot, one by Slate, and all published in a span of a couple weeks. All of the other sources linked (I just opened them all) are single sentence mentions and don't help notability. [Internal Wikipedia stuff] + [something fun/quirky] = Almost impossible to delete at AfD, I'm finding, regardless of sourcing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2013 covers it perfectly well, and a few more sentences there would be fine too if someone wants to merge a bit more, but the main article is somewhat wordy itself and doesn't need to be standalone per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92 Talk 22:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as others have said, this is definitely notable enough to be a Wikipedia article, with sources covering the argument. If keep fails then I'd suggest to make a redirect. Heythereimaguy ( talk) 00:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Re-direct to list of lamest edit wars - Wikipedia has had many disputes over article titles. PS: I hope an article isn't created about this AfD. GoodDay ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep We have two enduring sources 2016 and 2021 (the 2016 source was just added by me). There may be more missed, and more in the future, 8 years is too soon to declare it a dead item when some sources continue to reference it over time. --
Green
C
05:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, the 2016 source in question brings up the controversy as a single-sentence example brought up in a larger point about Wikipedia's style of discussion and consensus—but I think it's time for this discussion to come to a close, however that comes down. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 07:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's true but the entire article is about Wikipedia, the author chose a select few case examples to illustrate in the opening paragraphs for the points he would make further into the article. -- Green C 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak merge and redirect. Borderline notability and I think it fails on the non-notable side; I think the coverage at List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2013 is sufficient - it can be expanded with what we have here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep based on the sourcing, but a merge is not a terrible outcome and should be handled as a talk page discussion if desired. Barely anyone here is arguing for outright deletion, which is good, because if we did that, I suspect Randall Munroe might pen another XKCD about how Wikipedia deletes things that end up making his older cartoons less funny, only it would be far wittier than the potential summary I've done. Jclemens ( talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Into List of Wikipedia controversies. Good read, but lasting coverage seems to be all in passing. On a related note I actually think there's enough coverage of edit wars in the news and in books to support the creation of an article about edit warring itself (see Gizmodo, Vox, BBC, The Economist, Stack Overflow, Springer, Cambridge). DigitalIceAge ( talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I may go there next! theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This is has been up for eight days now; isn't it time for a close? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Reply It will be closed when it's closed. Please allow the process to work itself out. BusterD ( talk) 00:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I wasn't sure if AfDs can run over until I checked the old page. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:05, 2 November 2021 (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.