Talk:Digital Blasphemy

Cleanup tag
SC147: I've put a new image and enough new text to make it "better than average" on wikipedia, we have an image from the most famous wallpaper gallery on the net posted by permission, and certainly more information than we have on most "tagged" pages -- do you have any more comments on the cleanup tag that would prevent me from removing it in a week if the article is left as-is?

Ojw 23:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement
This is clearly an advertisement - not only does it go against the rules, it goes against common sense. Would you open any Encyclopedia and expect to see an entry like this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlweb3d (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this blatant puff piece for a commercial site really belong in an encyclopaedia?


 * It belongs here more than these two comments do. (No excuse to ever misspell encyclopedia if it's listed as a page title.)


 * "Encyclopaedia" is a perfectly correct and acceptable spelling. Please sign your posts. --Canley 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Plus this is a perfectly notable site - it is not a 'spam site' as some in that deletion review allege, nor is it even a company. Perfectly legitimate, not even advertising. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Listed for deletion. Discussion on deletion should go to the deletion discussion page. --Sascha.leib 09:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow
I'm surprised this is even in here, but I guess Wikipedia really is that all-encompassing.

This is an advertisement. 64.140.73.93 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a 3d site, and I'm sure that if someone did an article about my website, that it would be deleted. Let him do normal advertising, like everybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlweb3d (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Source found
I'll put the link here as well: http://web.archive.org/web/20010604040436/www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2661322,00.html This is the internet archive's archive of a story, "Yahoo! Internet Life's 100 Best Sites for 2001". Digital Blasphemy was chosen as the best Wallpaper site of 2001. While I put the link in the external links section of the article, it could go in the references section if the article text is based in part upon it. --Xyzzyplugh 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of secondary/third-party sourcing
Of the 8 sources cited in this article, 6 are to Digital Blasphemy's own website (the two exceptions being Alexa's listing on the company's website -- itself a WP:PRIMARY source, albeit a third-party one, and a bare mention for the factoid that, incongruously and without explanation, somebody considers a third-party wallpaper to be "essential"). Adequate sourcing this ain't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, consensus in the 4th AFD was that it was.   D r e a m Focus  03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:complete bollocks. The AfD said little or nothing about the sources that were currently in the article, and the closure itself explicitly stated "however, a few more references here would help." I would suggest that if you want to avoid an inevitable 5th AfD, that you put some effort into improving this article rather than making patently fallacious claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are fine as long as no one sincerely doubts the information there. Are there any unbelievable claims?   D r e a m Focus  03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More WP:complete bollocks. WP:PSTS makes it very clear that WP:SECONDARY sources should predominate. Also it is very hard to see how a NPOV article can be written, when the article is sourced almost purely to the topic's own publicity material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you actually click on that link and read it, you'll see that's not the case.  D r e a m Focus  03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.
 * I don't see how that this can be twisted to saying that predominate primary sourcing is okay. And I don't see how you have any credibility left on this issue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And why the personal attack? The article not its content.  Read the rest of that. should not must.  "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Kindly read all of that.   D r e a m Focus  04:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) So you're interpreting a core-policy-"should" as an 'only if I feel like it'? (ii) Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Make enough fallacious claims and people stop listening. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most people stopped listening to you a long time ago. You follow the ARS tagged articles around deliberately to oppose the work of the project, and constantly attack its members. .  Even when articles like this are saved, you still keep going after them.  I'd like to hear opinions from others about this.   D r e a m Focus  14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I give a rat's arse as to what you "think" about me? Yes, I frequently oppose the vacuous 'keep everything no matter how trivial' opinions of the Article-Canvassing-and-Notability-Obfuscation-Ceasepool. What of it, and what possible relevance does it have to the lack of third party sourcing on this article? A 'keep' closure on an AfD does not obviate the requirement for third-party sourcing. Get a fracking clue! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You argued that point in the AFD but most said the third party sources were fine to prove the topic was notable.   D r e a m Focus  15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This sort of claim is exactly why I don't "give a rat's arse" about your opinions -- with the exception of G4TV, none of the third party sources discussed in the AfD are actually in the article . I was NOT ARGUING NOTABILITY -- I was arguing LACK OF THIRD PARTY SOURCING IN THE ARTICLE! This would be obvious to any reasonable editor by the title of this section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You only need third party reliable sources to prove its notability, which has been done. Primary sources are fine for the article's content if the information is not in doubt.  Many articles have most of their content from the original source. For instance articles about places, companies, and organizations.   D r e a m Focus  15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:PSTS, WP:ABOUTSELF and any reasonable reading of WP:NPOV, an article requires substantial secondary/third-party coverage. That WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument -- exceptions to any rule will exist somewhere in Wikipedia. Now if you're quite finished making the unsubstantiated claim that "primary sources are fine", "primary sources are fine", over and over again -- can you please at least attempt to find a policy basis for this ludicrous claim? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Predominance of such material is also a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrafn asked for comment about this at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.  D r e a m Focus  16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for additional input earlier from the Wikiproject dedicated to this type of article. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Websites  D r e a m Focus  16:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the importance tag needed in the article? More opinions please
I see no reason to have this at all. That is something that should be on the talk page, not in the article. One other editor disagrees. More opinions please.  D r e a m Focus  15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the only question (as opposed to empty table-pounding posturing) here is "Why is the importance tag needed in the article?" -- to which the answer would appear to be blatantly obvious, I hadn't previously answered. However, as you're using that 'failure' as an excuse to remove the tag, here's the blatantly obvious: it is needed because an editor cannot see the importance of mentioning that, as a piece of apparent blatant hyperbole (assuming that there isn't some hidden aspect I have overlooked), Megan Morrone listed such a totally inessential frippery as a third-party wallpaper as an "essential". This empty hyperbole tells the reader nothing informative about the product, so I see no reason whatsoever for including it. Such issues are exactly what importance-inline is for, so I make no apologies for using it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You made your objections quite clear in the AFD. Consensus was that it was a valid link.  There is no reason to have the tag there, any discussion you wish to have about that could be done on the talk page, no need to put that in the article.  Consensus was that it belongs in the article, and its not just an indiscriminate collection of information.  Note: that tag links to WP:INDISCRIMINATE   D r e a m Focus  10:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And of the three editors discussing that link on the AfD, you were the only one who thought that it had value. Consensus on this point? I think not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Point for the third-opinion offerer -- this editor would be more interested in an opinion on whether Megan Morrone's claim that this product is "essential" is empty hyperbole, and thus whether it deserves mention in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence for the "top six" claim at the cited source; am I missing something? Unless the show itself is archived somewhere, I don't think we have a source for that particular claim.  If that claim is not well sourced, then the whole thing does merit the tag; if not, I don't think it does.  --Elvey (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Twisted List
 * Megan Morrone counts down the six essential school supplies available online.

ReadPlease Student's Guide to MLA Style Chicago Manual of Style LiveJournal Startup Control Panel Digital Blasphemy Wallpaper
 * This was featured on a television show, the internet just giving a summary there, not showing all the details they mentioned don that episode. I couldn't find a transcript.   D r e a m Focus  16:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up requested. Well, that looks like the "top six" claim is well-sourced then.  So, IMO, the tag should go.  (I am surprised that it has thus far survived all AFDs.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs)
 * Given that the tag in question was importance-inline not failed verification, your response appears to be a complete non sequitor. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The importance tag only links to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What part of that do you believe applies to this?   D r e a m Focus  11:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" -- material can be true but uninformative -- as in the case of this material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It got mentioned on a notable television show, which is a notable thing to mention. You don't think anything in the article is important, since you tried to get it deleted previously.   D r e a m Focus  18:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realise that you apply the word "notable" so indiscriminately that it basically takes on the meaning of "any". Thus your unsubstantiated and logically invalid assertion becomes "It got mentioned on any television show, which is anything to mention." To which I would point out that this 'anything to mention' does not in fact state anything informative -- as no reader is going to accept that Morrone really believes that computer wallpaper is "essential" (as opposed to the statement being hyperbole). As for whether anything in the article is important, your 3O offerer likewise stated "I am surprised that it has thus far survived all AFDs." I'm hardly alone in this opinion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarified on my talk page, where Hrafn draggged this. --Elvey (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notable does not mean any. The Screen Savers is a notable show, as is Megan Morrone.  Whether any reviewer believes in what they are saying or not is not relevant at all.  Most game and film reviewers refuse to give less than a 3 out of 5 for something made by an advertiser no matter how bad it gets, the low ranking scores only for those that aren't paying them.   D r e a m Focus  18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So notable a show that none of the (very few) cited sources in its article appear to even mention it. (ROFLMAO) And "whether any reviewer believes in what they are saying or not" is certainly relevant to their credibility as a source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That show was on television for seven years, and had many notable people on it(notice everyone involved in it has a blue link to their own article). And you can't read the mind of the reviewer.  We can't go through and eliminate thousands of Wikipedia articles because someone doubts what the quoted reviewers say about them.  It gets coverage from a reliable source, so that's all that matters.   D r e a m Focus  19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:INHERITED -- lousy argument (but then so have all your other ones, so why stop now?). Yes you bloody well can "read the mind of the reviewer", when the reviewer is using BLATANT AND OBVIOUS HYPERBOLE! This is par-tic-u-lar-ly true for such an overused, and thus devalued, word as "essential", and par-tic-u-lar-ly true where the product in question is as blatantly inessential as computer wallpaper. Get a bloody clue! <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You aren't making any sense here. Do you honestly think the show mentioned the list as some sort of joke?  These were sites they thought useful, and mentioned them in a list.   D r e a m Focus  10:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * hyperbole -- I'm sorry if my use of big words confused you -- 'extreme exaggeration' used for effect. Please explain how calling computer wallpaper "essential" could be considered serious? It is not a "joke" as such, more a widely overused trope -- where the adjective "essential" is applied to anything and everything (which is why so many books, even about blatantly inessential subjects, have "essential" in their title -- even variants of "essential trivia"). <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You object to the coverage because they used the word "essential" instead of a word you consider more appropriate?  D r e a m Focus  11:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated I object to it because it is empty hyperbole that offers no information about the topic. I would likewise object to the inclusion of a claim that some TV show or similar called the topic 'amazing', 'stupendous' or any other empty-headed superlative. Now answer the question: what is there about this product that could seriously be described as "essential"? <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Screen Savers" might be a notable show, but that doesn't make it a reliable show. Your own credibility as an editor is also diluted by your inevitable inclusionism and willingness to argue for the preservation of anything on WP, no matter how trite - your assertions of article value are used so regularly that they now no longer carry much weight. This particular article has regularly been AfD'ed for years, yet it still doesn't adequately demonstrate notability from its own references. !voters at AfDs assure that the article is notable and referenceable, yet this evident display of such still hasn't been done. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should comment on the argument, not the editor. The majority of people felt the article demonstrated its notability, and should be kept, and so it was.  If you don't believe it is a reliable source, then go to the reliable source notice board and ask there.   D r e a m Focus  10:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your best claim for notability is a trivial mention on a defunct TV show, nearly ten years ago. That's not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, so the fact the show, like most shows, didn't last forever, isn't relevant. And they featured it on the show.  The website only gives the list, not the transcript of everything that was said.  And the last AFD said there was enough to establish the article's notability.   D r e a m Focus  11:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Notability is not" trivial mention either. Notability requires depth of coverage, which such programs very frequently are entirely lacking in. <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The AFD is over. Articles for deletion/Digital Blasphemy (4th nomination) If you disagree with the outcome, too bad.  I'm not going to waste time arguing over nonsense.  People who want an article deleted, should not be editing it or bothering people on its talk page.   D r e a m Focus  12:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No. An AfD is over. Given (i) the completely shitty article, (ii) the completely trivial topic & (iii) the complete lack of any third party coverage that isn't itself both completely trivial and completely vacuous, I think I can completely guarantee that there'll be a Articles for deletion/Digital Blasphemy (5th nomination) at some stage. So yuck it up while you can. <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P)
 * Give it a few months, then we can have a 5th nomination to celebrate the tenth anniversary of its 15 seconds of fame, and the fact there's still nothing else mentioning it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)