Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet scandals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of Internet scandals
List was created to give editors who create articles on non-notable internet drama a place to put them after the article is deleted, to discourage recreation. While I understand the sentiment, I don't think it's a good idea. If something doesn't belong on wikipedia, it doesn't belong, period.
Also, this list is likely to be dangerous from a WP:BLP perspective. For a start, the term 'scandal' is kind of inherently pov. Crook and his fake DMCA take-down notices, for example, are imo less a scandal and more a really stupid move on his part. And every time one of these flash-in-the-pan Internet 'scandals' happens, we get droves of people wanting to add their own commentary on it to the 'pedia. Take the whole 'stolen sidekick' fiasco for an example. People who were following that one came to wikipedia to add information that was uncited, and in some cases possibly libelous and potentially dangerous for the young lady accused of stealing the device. We should not be encouraging people to add uncited and non notable material on any subject, but internet drama least of all. -- Vary | Talk 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks encyclopedic value. In addition, the criteria for listing is too vague and subjective. Agent 86 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete Useless and unencylopedic. The notable entries have their own articles or are otherwise covered elsewhere. I this sticks around long it'll become a magnet for all sorts of internet drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As said, vague criteria, probably libellous, POVs, and useless. Plus, the contents are frankly stuff that's a) better covered in the subject articles, if someone gives a damn, (No one's going to make the leap of guess like "Hmm, that famous Orrin Hatch's website goof[1], I wonder if it's going to be covered in Wikipedia. Oh! I know! I'll go looking for it from "List of Internet scandals"!) and b) stuff that's generally so boring that no one gives damn. (Apart of that Shriber thing. That had squirrels and all. Okay, it was actually still pretty much boring.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Internet, or an appropriate sub-page of that. These incidents should be mentioned somewhere in one of the general Internet articles we have. However, we don't need a separate page just for "scandals" - that'd just cause too much debate over just what is and what isn't an actual scandal. Quack 688 03:18, 6 January 2007 (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.
