Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube

Add links
Page semi-protected
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. There isn't any other way this is going to end. There are a couple (and only a couple) of reasonable comments in favour of Keeping this, but consensus is clear. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Cube

The People's Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources are their own website, snopes and an urban legend debunking website. Article would need to be significantly rewritten to be encyclopedic and is questionably notable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That various "fact checkers" (such as Snopes) found it necessary to "debunk" the site's satire, is the best evidence of notability a site -- any web-site -- can have.

The efforts to remove the article about the site can only be explained by the severe dislike of the site itself -- this becomes immediately obvious after reading the article's discussion-page... There are no reasons to delete it. пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanBK: the snopes article talks about the faked newspaper itself and that it was once on the website, which is the only mention of the website in the article. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Chrissymad:, first of all, Snopes has multiple articles "debunking" The People's Cube's satire. The "rumors" they "debunk" have originated on the site, which makes the site notable. It is not any more a "faked newspaper", than is, for example, The Onion.

Personally, please, do not deny having been canvassed into this -- without ever participating in the article's discussion, you propose an AfD of the 9-year old article on the same day, an attempt for "non-controversial" PROD of it (by @Hongkai2000:) is turned down...пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanBK: I'm not sure why you think I was canvassed into coming here? The only reason I even noticed this page is because of a tweet that appeared in relation to a Wikipedia search on Twitter. Ironically, it was from The People's Cube canvassing for editors and Wikipedia experts to help fight the leftist Wikipedia editors.[1] Frankly, I don't care about the website one way or another. The only reason I nominated this was per what I said above. So I guess technically, I was the opposite of whatever canvassed is? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@PanBK: I canvas you. Seriously though, this is not a vote. It is a discussion. Arguments are all that matters. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://twitter.com/ThePeoplesCube/status/815990773661528064
  • Delete - Not finding independent reliable sources for which this website is the primary (or even a significant) subject; there are only passing references. The mere existence of a meme originating from a website does not make the website itself notable (although the meme could be independently notable - the whole point of a meme is that it goes beyond its origin). Risker (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the applicable notability standard here is Wikipedia:Notability (web). Risker (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citations of the site have, in fact, been offered on the article's discussion-page already. пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mention in the deGrasse book is fleeting - a single sentence; it's not a significant subject of the book by any stretch of the imagination. We'd be looking for several pages of discussion, if not a whole chapter. The Snopes and About.com references mention that the specific meme started at the website, but the most common iteration of the meme is not that from The People's Cube, but a significantly modified one. The Cutts blog is, well, a blog; it's not a reliable source. That Google yanked TPC off its lists isn't notable, that happens hundreds of times (if not more) a day. I'm sorry that the website isn't as notable as you'd like, but it simply isn't. Risker (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact-checkers have "debunked" multiple "rumours" originating on the site -- that alone is proof of the site's notability. Discounting the reference in "Pluto Files" as "fleeting" seems like POV -- the requirement for a citation to involve "several pages" to count seems newly-invented. To summarize, the site is no less notable than The Onion's, even if it never had a dead-tree edition. Keep. пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newly invented? The GNG required significant or multiple non trivial coverage since the early development of the guidelines which was in the days when a bunch of people still thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the 44th President of the USA as she'd manage to defeat this upstart senator .... [1]. Actually the time from now to when it was added to GNG is a few years more than the time from when it was added to when wikipedia first came to be. In other words, if that's "newly-invented" you have a very weird definition of "new". Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whenever the subject of "notability" comes up, I'm reminded of the persistent attempt to delete all articles about historical nobles below the rank of Baronet while keeping every single article about every minor video game character. "Notability" is very much a relative thing: I think "The People's Cube" is notable to anyone who is interested in political satire, just as nobles below the rank of Baronet are notable to historians and history buffs even if they may not be 'household names' to the video gamer set. I don't see any reason to delete this article. GBRV (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So...a misunderstanding of notability as it applies to Wikipedia and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Alright then. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to a systematic problem with the way "notability" is analyzed, so I think my comments were relevant and not based on a "misunderstanding". This type of issue comes up constantly. GBRV (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem is whatever you were referring to, you don't seem to have explained why this article is notable. It being notable to people who are interested in political satire isn't an argument based on any accepted guideline or policy. (Nor for that matter the baronet thing. Significant coverage of these people in sources published by historians obviously is a good argument.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Throwing out the existing unreliable sources leaves the article with very little good info to go on. However, as a general rule, I dislike subjective notions of notability used as the primary reason for deleting anything. I could just as easily point out the 260k google hits or articles where the founder gets into legal trouble (with the site mentioned multiple times). I think notability is a non-issue here. However, the lion's share of the article being a blatant copyvio is. I think this article needs to be rewritten, and some better sources (like the one I just gave) used. I don't think it needs to be trashed. Karunamon ✉ 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted upon further consideration. Karunamon ✉ 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You know, I wasn't actually going to !vote here but the sheer misunderstanding of notability as it pertains to Wikipedia on this AFD is astounding. You all need to read WP:NWEB and you need to understand that this is not the place to air your grievances towards Wikipedia policy. This article does not meet notability as it is currently written. Sorry it doesn't. All the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in the world is not going to change the facts of the matter. All the pleas from the website isn't going to fix the fact that there isn't enough independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. There is not enough there to show that the website merits an independent Wikipedia article of its own. I'm sorry. Facts are facts. And the fact is, the website doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. That is not to say that it will never meet said criteria. Just that at the moment it does not. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Majora feels entitled to his own facts... пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. None of the article's current sources demonstrate notability and none of the article's statements are supported by a reliable source. There are a couple of reliable sources out there, but they only mention The People's Cube in passing and do not provide in-depth coverage. Worth noting that this article was started by someone affiliated with the site and included a lengthly "founder's bio", a copyright violation, that stuck around for almost 9 years. Canvassing has taken place both on their website and social media sites. gobonobo + c 00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Site's satire has been reprinted in numerous places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101B:C048:223:32FF:FE9F:B256 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that this isn't a notable website is absurd on its face. It's been discussed, repeatedly, on Rush Limbaugh-the most popular talk radio show in the country. Its work has been cited by astronomer Michael Eric Dyson in The Pluto Files. Its dispute with Google was chronicled extensively throughout the blogosphere. Oleg Atbashian's writing has been published by websites too numerous to mention, including The American Thinker, PJ Media, and his political activism explored extensively by other websites, such as FrontPageMag.com. He's been interviewed by dozens of prominent media outlets, including The Rebel Media, and given speeches throughout the country to civic and political groups and clubs. His work has been cited by Michelle Malkin, among many others. His graphics have been used in scores of protests, both before and after the Tea Party revolution. The only rationale for deleting this entry would be extreme ideological bias against the ideas he's expressed. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not going to dispute that with you but I am going to ask for sources. Several people in this AfD have said ""he" or the website have been talked about at xyz" but so far no one has provided any sources and those of us who did do some searching came up empty handed for RS. I can say the moon is purple and I've talked about it on Anderson Cooper but it doesn't make my idea notable or true. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
comment Well, here's a link to a conversation between Rush and Oleg: [2]. Here's Michelle Malkin effusively praising Oleg and his website: [3]. Here's an interview he did with Rebel media: [4]. And here's a link to a selection of interviews he's done over the past 5 years on the Web, satellite and terrestrial radio, and podcasts. [5] Which you might have noticed if you had taken a cursory glance at his website-you know, the one you're so eager to delete from Wikipedia. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthfulbarbarity: comment I don't think there was a doubt that any sources exist but not a single source that you linked is independent and reliable... Also one should not have to look solely at the subject's website to determine notability, that's the entire point I'm making. Anyone can claim anything they like about themselves - that's why interviews are generally not accepted as WP:IRS. And please stop accusing me of trying to delete a website from Wikipedia. I'm advocating deletion of an article that currently does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
comment Right. This comment basically proves for me that the "notability" policy as it exists here is utterly and completely broken. When someone can have this much coverage and it's all handwaved for contrived and subjective-looking reasons... Karunamon ✉ 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment and that is why articles require different types of sources. Anyone can write about anything and generate search results in google or publish it in a local paper. If this were the accepted standard, every person that wanted a Wikipedia page for their fly-by-night business would have one. That's not an encyclopedia, that is a directory. I could write pages upon pages about my experience with my first car or the comic that showed up in my local neighborhood newspaper. I could find notable people to also write about it and publish it or interview me. That doesn't make me or that comic notable. Perhaps I am misunderstanding because I'm new but it seems that this is not the place to challenge notability as a policy. The policy exists currently and until that changes, it has to be applied to any and all articles, not those that you and I selectively choose. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
comment ...in any case, I guess there's no point in litigating that here. I think it's blindingly obvious just by a count how this discussion will end. Karunamon ✉ 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Your comparison to blatantly self-promoting websites is revealing. This is a prominent website which has been repeatedly cited on national talk radio shows-the most popular talk radio show, in fact-podcasts, published articles, interviews, and books, and whose artwork has been broadcast on national television in a number of well-publicized protests. To try to minimize the significance of this website and its founder is illustrative of your real motives, which have nothing to do with the procedural minutiae you've been harping on. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Ruthfulbarbarity for the last time, stop accusing me of having an ulterior motive unless you have some sort of evidence. I presented my reasoning and have not given any reason to doubt that. And since you seem to have missed my point last time, Popularity or a high number of google results does not mean notable and conversely obscurity doesn't mean something is not notable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Delete fails WP:NWEB and the Snopes mentions don't amount to what we require under WP:GNG. Sorry, this isn't notable under Wikipedia policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are lots of mentions on lots of sites that fall far short of being RS. The best I could find was this [6] and this [7]. I don't think this is enough in-depth independent coverage in RS to establish notability. MB 03:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker. Needs independent RS coverage. Snopes doesn't establish notability, otherwise we'd have an article on Brian Peppers. (Oh god I'm old enough to remember that edit war!) Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "Brian Peppers" bruhaha. Also, expect a couple of SPAs to show up as TPC has put out a public call for help. Rklawton (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The argument about a lack of "RSs" in this case is rather silly, since we're dealing with an element of pop culture whose notability must be established by other things in the pop culture, not by academic journals or top news sources. Do you think the thousands of Wikipedia articles about video games are citing the New York Times? No, they cite gaming websites which normally wouldn't be considered "RSs" except when dealing with video games. "The People's Cube" is a political satire site which is mostly going to be cited by other satire sites, political sites, talk shows, etc; and it's those types of things which establish its notability. We wouldn't expect it to be cited by the Journal of the American Medical Association. As for some people's interpretation of policy: if this article fails notability by that interpretation, then probably 70% of the other articles here would also fail by the same interpretation. An interpretation of policy which would rule out most of the articles here is not a reasonable interpretation, and it's stridently Deletionist. The trouble with Deletionism is that it pretends Wikipedia has a strict space limit like a print encyclopedia, thereby defeating the entire point of an online, open-ended encyclopedia. GBRV (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment While I mostly agree with your reasoning regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines being overly restrictive (I am often saddened to see decent articles getting deleted, merged, or gutted), I think there is also a matter of verifiability here. If there are no sources actually going in depth about this website, how are we supposed to write a reasonably detailer article on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Other things in the pop culture" still have to be reliable. That's a discussion for WP:RSN, not for here. Your estimate of the 70% is based on nothing at all, as far as I can see. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • To establish that something is popular in the culture, you don't need academic journals or other prestigious sources. The many articles about Pokemon characters often cite the company's own website as a source, since the New York Times doesn't have a database on the exact traits of every Pokeman character. But no one objects to that, based on the reasoning that a gaming database is the best available source for stuff like this. There's a tremendous double standard here. My 70% figure was a very rough estimate, sure, but think of all the tens of thousands of articles on video games and video game characters, soap opera characters, porn stars, etc, etc. How many of those articles would pass your litmus test? And how many of them are backed up with citations from prestigious RSs? And no, this isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that such articles make up such a large percentage of Wikipedia. They are in fact the norm, not the exception. My point was that some of you guys would need to delete most of Wikipedia to enforce your interpretation of the rules. GBRV (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An editor has now substantially reworked the article. I have not reviewed the references or changes in detail; just noting this here for those following the AFD. Special:Diff/758140351 -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed this article on this very nomination. This is a FIRST for me where the AFD itself has coverage when I search for the article topic on google news. It seems like the source itself is trying to fight back against this deletion, interfering with our local affairs. Even if the article is kept, it is evident that this article needs to be closely watched against conflicts of interest by the editors editing it.
I am a bit split on this sites notability. In a YouTube video Fareed Zakaria complains about this site without mentioning it directly (as an obscure website). So on one end they aren't very notable based on my simple google search. On the other hand they caused enough grief to be notable?
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Our local affairs? This is not the Kiwanis Club. This is a global encyclopedia that allows anyone-and everyone-to edit articles and contribute to discussions, regardless of whether they are Wikipedians. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ruthfulbarbarity: While anybody can comment, deletion discussions tend to be an exclusive affair for the local Wikipedia community. We would not be much of a global encyclopedia if we let random external websites dominate and decide AfDs for us. Our policies and criteria are based on the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the purpose of an AfD is to discuss if the article meets these policies and criteria. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The "article" about this AfD is a posting on The People's Cube. It actually is fairly common for websites to rally their readers to AfD conversations. TFD (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Four Deuces: Yes, but those normally don't show up in the google news feed. That can create a lot of noise here (as evident by the blatant canvassing). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The topic has not, as required by ""Notability", "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." There are few if any mentions in mainstream media and none in depth. The "Snopes" article is about a rumor that started with the Cube, but otherwise says nothing about it. If readers want to know about the Cube, they can go to their website. TFD (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are you talking about? I've referenced and linked to multiple non-trivial sources, on the Internet, talk radio, and television,which have discussed The People's Cube and Oleg Atbashian at length. Again, Rush Limbaugh-the most popular terrestrial radio host in this country-is just one of the people who have discussed this subject at length. Michelle Malkin, an extremely popular blogger and best-selling author has praised Oleg and his website on several different occasions. All of his major radio and Web interviews are linked to on his site, but these interviews took place on other forums. I don't see what part of this is difficult to understand. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin sites are not reliable sources. See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." What a talk show host says on their talk show is not a reliable source either. Even if they were, they provide only passing information. TFD (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was offering those sources as proof that the site and its author have recognition in the general culture, rather than claiming these sources are prestigious or neutral journalistic or academic sources. GBRV (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recognition in the general culture is not sufficient reason to have an article, there must be reliable sources that can be used to write the article. The Malkin and Limbaugh references for example fail reliable sources and should be removed. All we would be left with is information from The People's Cube and Snopes' statement that one of their satirical pieces was taken literally. And surely that is not enough to write an informative article. TFD (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. It's been blogged about by other bloggers, but no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Wikishovel (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Same reason as Brian Peppers and Filthy Frank. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see WP:NEXIST Snit333 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — Snit333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete – As I noted on the article's talk page before this AfD, I have, unfortunately, been unable to find the requisite level of reliable source coverage that WP:NWEB demands. I would like to note that personal blogs are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, since anyone can create and maintain one. Are there examples of coverage in high-quality mainstream publications? Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would indeed be notable if there was an example of good, funny, right-wing satire, but the consensus appears to be that this isn't it, so has been generally ignored by the kinds of sources we require. Sadly, all right-wing satire appears to fail Poe's Law. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oleg Atbashians job in the ussr was a propagandist. To see him censored here creates a very dangerous precedent, esp in these times. I can unequivocally say that Wikipedia will not receive a single penny from me ever if he is censored. But I will work on a competitor and replacement for this anachronism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.81.215 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — 84.226.81.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nobody is being censored, and nobody is impressed by threats to withhold donations - you can't influence editors in that way. If the subject of this article has Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources then this article will be kept. If it doesn't, it won't. It's really that simple. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not work like US politics. You cannot BUY your place on this site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The way it works is quite simple and straightforward. If the subject of this article meets the notability criteria that have been pointed out, the article is kept. If not, it isn't. It doesn't matter how many canvassed votes appear on this page - after all, this is a discussion not a ballot. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I've heard of it" seems to be exactly the kind of argument to avoid in deletion discussions (see "notability fallacies"). The question is not whether you or me have heard of it — it's whether it's received independent, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. And this website doesn't appear to have those. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good, so there's no great need to keep the page here then? Thanks for letting us know. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble might be one less page on Wikipedia might be the competitors gain including satirical sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Sd-100 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If other sites choose to have less stringent inclusion criteria, that's their choice. Good luck to them. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If anyone really thinks that a double standard isn't being used regarding "reliable sources" and "notability", I invite you to look at any of the uncountable articles about the Pokemon video game series, such as Bulbasaur evolutionary line - the scientific guide to the various species of Pokemons. Here you will find a taxonomic chart that includes the full evolutionary sequence (Squirtle evolves into Wartortle; Mega Lizardon X does not evolve, and so on). What do you suppose the "reliable sources" are for this chart? Scientific journals? Biology textbooks? CNN? No, most of it comes from the game company's own "Pokedex". There are tens of thousands of similar articles dealing with other video games, using sources that most of the people here would not consider reliable but which are usually deemed usable for that type of context. Don't accuse me of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because articles like these are practically the norm, not exceptional cases. I fully expect the Deletionists to go through and get rid of all of these articles. GBRV (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Double standards? The article you've linked has 72 references including reliable sources like IGN. Why are you insisting that this article survives with a lot less? Are you sure it's not you who has double standards? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it mostly uses the company's own website as a source for the "data" on Pokemons. You're also missing the main point, which was: it's common practice to allow a different litmus test for "reliable sources" based on individual context (in the Pokemon articles, gaming websites and the company's own website are allowed for certain things), but whenever anyone in this discussion asks for evidence of notability in the pop culture, they refuse to accept pop cultural sources and then claim there aren't enough sources. GBRV (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is, that isn't a standalone article...it's part of a character list. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, it's part of a very large group of articles on literally every single character in that video game series, no matter how obscure some of the characters may be; and yet here we're being told that a popular website isn't "notable" ? That's astoundingly ironic, and THAT was my main point. GBRV (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working on a userspace draft of this article. Currently, it has most of the primary cites excised and the remainders used explicitly to support self published statements, and a heck of a lot more secondaries. However, I'm going to wait until this closes as delete before I even think of floating it in an RFC, given the !voting landscape I see here. This discussion is a mess thanks to TPC's canvassing, and the overwhelming sentiment here is to nuke it rather than fix its problems. Karunamon ✉ 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you've found enough Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources to support the recreation of this article later, why not just add them to the article now? That'd remove the reason for its deletion. There's no rule that says articles can't be improved during AfD discussions - be bold, remove all the silly blog-based sources from the article now and add the secondary sources that you've found. My delete !vote was based purely on the GNG & WP:WEB policies - if you can remove every single primary, blog based or other useless source and add something real, I'll change my !vote on the spot. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:SNOW, and because the canvassing initiated by TPC has poisoned the well. I'd rather the new version of the article be evaluated on its own merits, rather than in the context of this bandwagoned and canvassed environment. On top of that, I find that RFC is much more friendly and much less "sudden death" than AfD. Let this one burn, and then I'll see if the community thinks it deserves to rise from the ashes. If it fails there.. welp, I tried. Karunamon ✉ 22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, nobody can say I wasn't 100% reasonable about it. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Exemplo347. I have not !voted here yet, because it has not yet become clear to me whether or not the site is notable; and I suspect the closing administrator will take the evolution of the article into account. It's clear that a lot of people think it is, and I appreciate the efforts of Anonymous555444666 who has been quietly working to improve the article during the AfD. Any administrator should have the ability to see past the !votes that are not rooted in policy, and should apply less weight to !votes that were entered prior to improvements and not updated. You should of course proceed as you see fit, Karunamon, but I'd urge you to consider simply putting your draft in article space, where it might further benefit from the efforts of others. Even if it's deleted, if you feel the deletion is improper, you can always seek a WP:Deletion review. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but I'm speaking from years of reading AfDs here. We live in a world where people don't often act rationally even if it is good faith at the end of the day. I'm concerned that any improvements made here and now will be deemed insufficient (seriously, look upthread - even one single N,RS should be enough to merit inclusion, yet here we are with a torrent of delete votes), and this held against the article. I want to have the "what sources are okay" and "how many are enough" discussion on the drawing board, not the slaughterhouse floor. Karunamon ✉ 22:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are okay? Here is the policy - How many? Enough to establish Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources - there's no set limit. I've seen articles survive AfD discussions due to 3 articles about them in reliable sources. Note the "about them" part - passing mentions aren't enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS does a rather poor job of explaining anything objectively, rather pointing at a set of criteria that will have to be interpreted. As in judgment calls made. The problem is, I want to actually go over the article and its cites (and not in the handwavy "not good enough" sense that's been done above) ref by ref, cite by cite, and gather input on what people think is okay and what isn't, and why. Karunamon ✉ 23:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to take it through the Articles for Creation process then if you insist on doing it the hard way - if it's not substantially different to this article (should it be deleted after this discussion) then there's a good chance your new article will be speedily deleted under WP:G4. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.. Hadn't thought of that. Alright, see below. Karunamon ✉ 00:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1 - Alexa - does not establish notability. 2 (and 11) - Washington Times Communities - written by Abtashian - not independent source. 3 (and the others from) the People's Cube - not independent source for obvious reasons. 5 - only a passing mention of the site. 6 - passing mentions. 7 - article about a "People's Cube" toy, NOT the site. 8 (and the others that are just blogs) - self-created content. 9 - no mention of the site. 12 - about the Toy, not the site. 13 - passing mention. 14 - passing mention. 15 - passing mention. 16 - passing mention. 19 - yet another blog. 20 & 21 - not about the site. I haven't missed any out, I just don't like repeating myself. Now, you probably aren't going to understand the problem, so let me point it out in as few words as possible. None of these are articles about The People's Cube website, from Reliable Independent Sources - I can't make it any clearer to you. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Before anyone suggests that I didn't go through each one of these sources individually, I assure you I did, giving myself a headache in the process. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
WP:CIVIL, please. I do not appreciate the patronizing comments. See below:
  • Notability: Snopes, About (14,15) three direct mentions in books by various authors, one of whom is Neil DeGrasse Tyson (4,5,13) , and one more from a notable talk show host (8). All of these are secondary sources. One should be enough, have six. It is NOT a requirement of WP:N that it be established by one particular source to the exclusion of others. I question how you conclude that direct references of secondary sources talking about things the web site and its author has done or is responsible for does not establish notability of the site or its author. This is a standard of notability not used elsewhere on Wikipedia.
  • Primary sources: Only ever used to source a claim that.. the primary source said something. If the paragraph says "Exemplo347 said X", and the cite is Exemplo347's website, it is not unacceptable per WP:PRIMARY. No interpretation or WP:SYNTH has happened.
  • Passing mentions: I disagree with this interpretation. If a source is notable because of a certain thing they did, in this case, creating a bogus news article, it is not a "passing mention" to call out that thing they did (13). Snopes confirms that this image was being circulated via email, and debunked it. (14), About.com did similar (15). All of these are RSes.
I also find it very hard to believe that you critically evaluated 21 different citations in the 27 minutes between my comment being posted and your original reply. Karunamon ✉ 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you'd agree, but I find your statement that you think I'm not acting in good faith to be rather offensive after spending my free time evaluating the sources you provided. I'm not going to help you any further or reply to you. Please remember to assume good faith in your future dealings with other editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to put it another way. It is not possible for you to have fully evaluated 21 sources in 27 minutes. This would require you to have spent absolutely no more than 1 minute and 17 seconds per source assuming you started looking immediately after I posted. If you want me to assume good faith, I'd thank you to not attempt to deceive me by claiming that you did work you couldn't humanly have. Deception is bad faith. Karunamon ✉ 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, bullshit. How long is it supposed to take to determine that a passing mention is only a passing mention? If there's nothing more to read, you stop reading. --Calton | Talk 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problems remain. Sources are either unreliable, or not about the subject. Namechecks is about as good as it gets. Sorry, I'm afraid you wasted your time. Guy (Help!) 02:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again. How is a book (many of them, by otherwise reliable authors) saying "Website X did Y thing, here is an evaluation of it" a mere "namecheck"? Please explain your reasoning. I've done so. There's entirely too much repetition and very little in depth reasoning being used in this discussion.Karunamon ✉ 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Karunamon for the effort, you have greatly improved the case for keeping an article. Those voting Delete should take a look and reconsider; I'm convinced it's not the clear-cut case it initially appeared to be. I'm still on the fence; I appreciate your efforts. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Peteforsyth that this is looking a bit closer to the fence than it did at the beginning. Now that sources have been offered from a few published books and reputable authors, I've temporarily struck my delete !vote above and will take a second look. Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some more digging (and apologies for the watchlist spam, I just keep finding more). There's a blurb in WP:INTERVIEW that I think is very interesting: An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. With that in mind, here's an entire page of linked interviews going back to 2014. The top one is especially interesting - it is directly about the website. (direct link) I can wikify that interview list (since it's strictly a list of titles, dates, and links - no copyvio) and add it to the article if you think it's really necessary, but given what I just read, and the policy on interviews, there are at least 35 verified interviews with the author of this site that appear to be independent of the author himself. In my mind, that establishes notability all by itself to the word and spirit of the world at large giving attention to the subject. Karunamon ✉ 04:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interviews are not reliable sources except for what someone has said. And lots of the sources are not reliable anyway, such as programs by Glenn Beck and Cliff Kincaid. Putting aside for a moment the details of policy and guidelines, do you think that anyone could write a faur and objective article about a website when the only information they have comes from the website or its owners? And bear in mind it is a "satirical" website that distorts reality for humorous effect. This discussion for example is referred to in its site as a "show trial." TFD (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. But as mentioned, they establish notability, which is the what the primary beef a lot of the !voters expressed above. Furthermore, your hypothetical is already doomed, since "the only information they have" does not come from the website or its owners. That would be the job of the other ~15 citations or so. This goes back to what I was saying earlier - if you think certain sources are "not reliable" on this matter, please lay those out here, in detail, so they can be addressed, and the offending text re-sourced or removed. I also have to point out WP:SELFSOURCE, to wit, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met (and I see no failures of the following list). Again, if you disagree, let's talk about the details, rather than these vague WP:WEASELey-sounding generalities. Karunamon ✉ 06:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It always ring alarm bells when someone links to a policy or guideline without explaining how it relates. WP:WEASEL for example links to "Unsupported attributions". It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, it is just a bogus argument from authority on your part. Also, note that WP:NOTABILITY is established by coverage in reliable secondary sources, not by how often something is discussed in the blogosphere, unless and until reliable secondary sources pick up on it. If you don't like that policy, get it changed. Furthermore, while self-published sources may be used, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." They cannot be based on primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The intention there was your refusal (and continuing refusal) to point out specific issues with the non-primary sources used. WP:WEASEL is about the use of weasel words rather than quoting individual people. Your complaints are about unspecified bad sources rather than quoting individual ones, which I would like to fix if present. I have to assume that this means that you haven't actually examined them yet. Please do so. Also please see my above notes about interviews by multiple parties establishing notability per published site policy. Karunamon ✉ 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At present, The People's Cube is happy to have a Wikipedia article sourced entirely to them, either directly or indirectly. They see it as a advertisement. But as soon as any piece of negative information is written about them or anyone connected with them in reliable sources, that advantage will disppear and this article will probably rank higher in searches than the company's website. Read "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing." And if you then decide you want the article deleted, it is going to be difficult, especially if the evil mainstream media have published an exposé article. TFD (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what relevance this has to do with keeping the article or not. The subject of the article doesn't get to unilaterally decide if the article should exists or not, or its content. Karunamon ✉ 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not. But they can lobby their readers to vote for keeping, which they have done in this case. If they get enough of their readers to do that, then they can win a keep vote. Even if they do not do that, they are perfectly free to vote in deletion discussions and to attempt to persuade other editors to agree with them. TFD (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except "rallying their readers" doesn't appear to have done much in this case, and this was with a stickied front page article on their site. What else are they going to do? I see few questionable comments by newbies, and the atmosphere was very much in favor of nuking it before I tried reworking it. Furthermore, they can canvass all they want, this isn't a vote. I also question what relevance their conduct has to keeping this article. What they might do in the future or are doing now is immaterial to the fate of the article. Karunamon ✉ 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. All the hand-wringing about canvassing is in my view a little silly. Our administrators know how to ignore !votes (on both sides) that fail to reference policy or advance an argument. I think I was the first to point out the canvassing, but I didn't mean for it to become a major focus of the discussion -- just that Wikipedians should be aware of it, if they found themselves confused by why there were so many !votes from new and less experienced contributors. I'm pretty sure the outcome will be just fine, and will not afford undue influence to the site itself. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Canvassing is certainly annoying. I came here from their appeal and I'm not going to opine in any direction as a consequence. Nemo 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mentioned the canvassing up, because A Certain White Cat commented "I noticed this article on this very nomination." [19:35, 3 January 2017] I wanted to point out that the article he linked to was a call for canvassing on The People's Cube website, hence it did nothing to establish notablity. TFD (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My strong inclination prior to this AfD was to delete, and the flood of ill-informed "keep" votes underscored that view. However, I have now reviewed the newer version of the article put together primarily by Karunamon, and clicked through to several of the sources. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable Wikipedia article. There's a fairly wide variety of sources, including significant coverage in books from academic institutions, and some from major newspapers. Further sources will certainly help in creating a more nicely-rounded article, but what's in there now is, in my view, enough to clear the notability guideline. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Dewey Defeats Truman is famous for its inaccuracy; but inaccuracy, such as a fake newspaper headline from 1943, has the general effect of reducing the due weight to be given to the information.  There is also a problem here of WP:SYNTH, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, which this topic as a whole represents.  The attempt by the topic to preserve its article on Wikipedia is evidence that the topic hasn't attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time, and is seeking to attract that attention.  Wikipedia has a duty to not help in that attempt.  It seems unlikely at this point that the world will ever care that this website existed, and a look at Google Books and Google Scholar is not a reason to think otherwise.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The people advocating for deletion seem to have a tendency to ignore the massive amount of evidence which refutes their argument. The fact that information supporting notability is hosted on The People's Cube doesn't mean that evidence was created by the website itself. As Oleg has pointed out there are dozens upon dozens of instances of organic media coverage both online and off. Ranging from citations-and reprints of previously published articles-in Advertising Age, the Washington Times, the Washington Post and the New York Post to discussions of the website on Russia Today. Even if you adhered to the esoteric definition of notability used by some of the editors above, i.e. any reference on Web magazines and weblogs, no matter how prominent, doesn't count, it still wouldn't erase the dozens of references on cable television, published books, newspapers, and magazines.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not seeing the significant, in-depth secondary coverage. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no consensus and renominate if needed. The article that is being discussed now is fundamentally different than the one that was discussed originally, and the inherent complexity of considering every !vote in accordance with how the article was at that particular time makes this discussion nearly indecipherable. TimothyJosephWood 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Neutrality, there's no in-depth secondary coverage to differentiate this from a million other places where people talk online. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt obvious huge promotional pressure and this doesn't meet GNG. The revision of the article doesn't change that. Even what is there now, are passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After lots of revision to respond to this discussion the article relies so much on the NYT meme for content that it's now less about the site and more about the meme. Rather than prolong this process proponents of the article could spend some time gathering better sources with more focused references to the site, and then run a new draft by some of the more experienced names above.Seren_Dept 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I gave my word that I'd revisit this issue once all the unreliable references (blogs, passing mentions and references from T.P.C.'s own site) were removed, I've come back for a second look. As of this revision these are still passing mentions, except for one article dedicated to The People's Cube, by which I mean the toy - not the site itself. There is no reason for me to change my vote, and given the amount of time that has passed since this article's nomination I'm not convinced that the in-depth, reliable, independent coverage that Wikipedia requires will be found for this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gamaliel. Oh god, I remember Brian Peppers, too. --Calton | Talk 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only a handle full of sources does not make it notable. QuackGuru (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as others have said there is a lack of quality sourcing to support an article at this time. The site itself can't be used as a notability source either. Article in its current state is little different from how it was when first nominated, so that call to "close as no consensus" above is silly. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker. Simply, we lack more than a tiny amount of citable evidence for the notability of this website. -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't seen any significant, independent coverage, either here, in the article, or at article talk. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No, no, and thrice no. Lacks reliable independent third-party coverage, and there is a clear attempt at canvassing here to keep this article afloat.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to have been exciting! -but, unnecessarilly so. WP:WEBCRIT is perfecly clear: It has to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works- and not trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content in the sources. Unfortunately, that is all we have here- as they only give (at most) a brief summary of the nature of the content. No WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage, and no major awards, etc., won either, which is another relevant condition. Hence this article fails both WP:GNG generally and WP:NWEB particularly. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no obvious evidence of notability and the burden of proof lies on the article's proposers here. -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been a rapid deluge of "delete" votes one after another. What's going on? Is someone canvassing? GBRV (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment My guess is attention was unintentionally brought to the AfD by the ANI thread. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Note that going back to the beginning of this thread, those in favor of deleting have outnumbered those in favor of keeping. The margin by which they are outnumbered has been growing at a steady rate since then. I'm fairly certain this isn't so much an influx of "delete" !votes, but an influx of !votes following the same pattern as before. As for myself; yes, it was indeed the ANI thread that brought me here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also came to this AfD via ANI. -- The Anome (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any evidence of canvassing (in either direction) then by all means, post it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and (maybe) salt - There seems to be a great deal of interest in this topic and a number of people who support having an article on it, but there doesn't appear to be the number and degree of independent sourcing to establish a standalone article. If there were some other sort of list type article which could reasonably include this one, fine, maybe add it there. If there isn't, there seems to be based on the number of comments here to be enough basis to salt the article until and unless separate notability can be clearly established. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: I looked at suggesting a redirect as a solution- but couldn't quite see where it would go- here, perhaps? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably List of fake news websites ([8]). Guy (Help!) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's disappointing, if all too common, that people attempt to recruit biased voters to an AfD. Though such behavior leaves a bad taste, it does not influence my recommendation here. I've reviewed the article as it stands now. The sources used to support it are, at best, weak. Reference 1 is a passing mention in a book. Reference 2 might be useful in the context of other references, but by itself is of minimal use; discussing the logo in the context of an opinion piece on a separate topic rather than the site itself. Reference 3 has a passing quote from Atbashian and doesn't discuss the site. Reference 4 is another trivial mention in a book. The remaining references are about the urban legend/meme, which as others have noted doesn't have merit for notability for itself. We should also perhaps take a look at a possible AfD for Communists for Kerry, which has even less references. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Mjolnirpants and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_People%27s_Cube&oldid=1149826486"