|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I want to put this project page in my own namespace so that it can be used as my own essay.⸺ Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Because Jessica Yaniv was restored, we should also restore Jessica Yaniv waxing case. Sharouser ( talk) 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article subject is very notable for 2 reasons, and there is good RS that note both these points. Firstly, as an example of cyberbullying and trolling, they are one of the most (if not THE most) extreme cases of being trolled and bullied, and I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling. Secondly, the article subject has been often noted as probably the most documented person on the internet, with both a 2000 article complete website devoted to them, and an extensive documentary on them. I had checked previous examples of the article that had been deleted, they were years old and a lot of recent RS had appeared, which substantiated the article. I work on AFD quite a bit, and this article IMHO had more than enough RS to establish it. I'd spent quite a bit of time on this article, and I would ask at least that some editors look at it and judge it on its merits, rather than it simply be deleted unseen, without any discussion. I had contested the speedy deletion, but the article was deleted without going to AFD to allow a broader discussion (as explained by the deleting editor, due to the older articles being deleted). It would be great if someone could undelete the article, so editors can see the recent RS and judge it on that - thank you. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 07:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
How funny. Were interested projects and editors notified? I wrote or more probably rewrote this article, I think simply as List of hip hop albums ~12 years ago, very closely along the lines and methodology of List of prominent operas which had undergone peer review and was a featured list. The google results for searches for this sort of list in hip hop were worse than unscholarly at the time, and perhaps still are. Message threads on forums were among the *best* results. The article was rudely moved some time later without discussion by someone to the title it was deleted under. As an ip editor i could not move it back. This awful title is given by many as a reason for deletion. No one in this Afd read the talk page 'til it was well underway, when apparently one editor (arguing keep) did. Things very deliberately done, and reasoned on the talk page, following best practice, are cited as negatives in this afd. The use of specialist *and* generalist sources, for instance, was quite deliberate. The selection of the sources was carefully reasoned and justified in the talk page. They are better sources than Paste magazine was then and probably is now, yet it is called "overlooked". The rap-specific Pitchfork list mentioned came out many years later, yet i put it and other worthy new sources on the talk page, and suggested or asked for ways to incorporate them. Discussion of albums mentioned in this afd like All Eyez on Me and so on is all in the article's talk page, rigorously connected to sourcing. (I can't read the Talk page so this is all from from memory). "comments lifted straight from the sources, and the sources seem pretty arbitrary as well" This is a complete falsehood, because it was painstaking work paraphrasing the sources concisely, and mixing paraphrase with sparing use of direct quotes (*in* quotes, of course). Not all of this work will have survived in the deleted version, which i cannot read, but it's apparent much of it did. One thing that is true is that the page was a nightmare to maintain. A popular google result, it attracted dartboard editing, and everyone wanted to include their favourites immediately. I was under the impression that this was not a valid reason for deletion by policy or consensus. I honestly don't care if this and other articles along similar lines are deemed not to fit. I just find it interesting what survives and what doesn't, and why. Polls about films are superior to works by experts in the field! Opera is static! Other stuff exists! And so on. It certainly could not be any kind of anything else. 78.18.237.81 ( talk) 03:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I want to put this project page in my own namespace so that it can be used as my own essay.⸺ Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Because Jessica Yaniv was restored, we should also restore Jessica Yaniv waxing case. Sharouser ( talk) 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article subject is very notable for 2 reasons, and there is good RS that note both these points. Firstly, as an example of cyberbullying and trolling, they are one of the most (if not THE most) extreme cases of being trolled and bullied, and I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling. Secondly, the article subject has been often noted as probably the most documented person on the internet, with both a 2000 article complete website devoted to them, and an extensive documentary on them. I had checked previous examples of the article that had been deleted, they were years old and a lot of recent RS had appeared, which substantiated the article. I work on AFD quite a bit, and this article IMHO had more than enough RS to establish it. I'd spent quite a bit of time on this article, and I would ask at least that some editors look at it and judge it on its merits, rather than it simply be deleted unseen, without any discussion. I had contested the speedy deletion, but the article was deleted without going to AFD to allow a broader discussion (as explained by the deleting editor, due to the older articles being deleted). It would be great if someone could undelete the article, so editors can see the recent RS and judge it on that - thank you. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 07:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
How funny. Were interested projects and editors notified? I wrote or more probably rewrote this article, I think simply as List of hip hop albums ~12 years ago, very closely along the lines and methodology of List of prominent operas which had undergone peer review and was a featured list. The google results for searches for this sort of list in hip hop were worse than unscholarly at the time, and perhaps still are. Message threads on forums were among the *best* results. The article was rudely moved some time later without discussion by someone to the title it was deleted under. As an ip editor i could not move it back. This awful title is given by many as a reason for deletion. No one in this Afd read the talk page 'til it was well underway, when apparently one editor (arguing keep) did. Things very deliberately done, and reasoned on the talk page, following best practice, are cited as negatives in this afd. The use of specialist *and* generalist sources, for instance, was quite deliberate. The selection of the sources was carefully reasoned and justified in the talk page. They are better sources than Paste magazine was then and probably is now, yet it is called "overlooked". The rap-specific Pitchfork list mentioned came out many years later, yet i put it and other worthy new sources on the talk page, and suggested or asked for ways to incorporate them. Discussion of albums mentioned in this afd like All Eyez on Me and so on is all in the article's talk page, rigorously connected to sourcing. (I can't read the Talk page so this is all from from memory). "comments lifted straight from the sources, and the sources seem pretty arbitrary as well" This is a complete falsehood, because it was painstaking work paraphrasing the sources concisely, and mixing paraphrase with sparing use of direct quotes (*in* quotes, of course). Not all of this work will have survived in the deleted version, which i cannot read, but it's apparent much of it did. One thing that is true is that the page was a nightmare to maintain. A popular google result, it attracted dartboard editing, and everyone wanted to include their favourites immediately. I was under the impression that this was not a valid reason for deletion by policy or consensus. I honestly don't care if this and other articles along similar lines are deemed not to fit. I just find it interesting what survives and what doesn't, and why. Polls about films are superior to works by experts in the field! Opera is static! Other stuff exists! And so on. It certainly could not be any kind of anything else. 78.18.237.81 ( talk) 03:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |