Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fram controversy


 * 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 merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. Nomination withdrawn, closing early as WP:SNOW merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only one reliable source covering this (I see no evidence Reclaim the Net is an RS). It's too early to tell whether this topic needs a standalone article or merely a mention in another (e.g. user revolt) – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing; consensus at this point favours a merge and I do not wish to stand in its way. 03:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to draftsapce. We should not hide what the WMF did by deleting this article per WP:IAR. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems inevitable there will be additional stories. Also agree re IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are at least two articles on this now. Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise WP:IAR per the above. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This may be a too soon situation, or not. There is now a piece on the affair up on Breitbart — shitty institution but a pretty good article by a banned off Wikipedian. "Wikipedia Editors Revolt Over Site's Ban of Veteran Administrator." Reading the comments will make you really stupid though... I would link but Breitbart is blacklisted so you'll just have to run a search. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. No evidence yet that notability is WP:SUSTAINED. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge for now like Triptothecottage said. This is a great example of a current event that shouldn't have an article until the dust has settled a little. The last thing we need is a lot of arguing among editors about how to present in article space the arguing among editors that's going on in project space. EEng 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, currently not even worthy of a merge. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - per Drmies. Way too small currently to be kept. It's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest more sources will surface.--NØ 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per and . I concede that it is possible that this controversy may break through to notability, but I do not think that the time has yet come for an article. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge for now but to User_revolt. It can of course be mentioned in both articles. For the interested, there's a Breitbart-article now as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to and  per WP:OVERLAP. This incident does not meet WP:GNG, as BuzzFeed News is the only qualifying source. "Reclaim the Net" is a blog with no listed editorial team that is less than a year old and not established enough to be a reliable source for assessing notability. Breitbart News  is a deprecated source and its unreliability was confirmed in a  earlier this week. —  Newslinger   talk   09:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies and/or User revolt. There is no which way to pull an article with two citations to meet GNG. Though it is tempting to keep the article, I would have to severely lower my usual standards, and thus be a hypocrite. If in time this gets wider coverage, I will reconsider my !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nom comment I'm not strongly opposed to a merge, but both articles (List of Wikipedia controversies and user revolt) floated as merge targets already have sections on the controversy. I see little content in this article suitable for merging without giving the topic undue weight, considering the lack of significant coverage. I'm also not opposed to draftifying until more coverage emerges; I proposed this resolution to the creator on their talk page, but they declined. – Teratix ₵ 10:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having for example Fram controversy and Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram as redirects to User_revolt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the second one, seemed sensible. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Soft Merge - until we get a second good source, this should be merged. I specifically say that if we get one more good source it can be returned as an article without prejudice Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify or merge. Opposed to IAR to privilege a subject that we care about. No need for double standards just yet. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Until we get a solid 2nd source (at a minimum), this should be MERGEd. I won't be surprised if it ends up getting that 2nd source if this drags on, but it's too soon for a stand alone article at this time.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, to avoid duplication of effort by what's left of the encyclopedia as additional RS become available (not Breitbart, though ).  Mini  apolis  13:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's bad enough that this controversy is causing people to go bananas at WP:FRAM and that it's causing editors to leave. We shouldn't also start littering the article space with our outrage. I've never understood why "Keep, WP:IAR" is a legitimate argument, but "Keep, WP:ILIKEIT" is not. In this case, WP:IAR is an exceptionally flimsy argument. That policy says we should ignore rules if they keep us from improving the encyclopedia, not in order to spite WMF. I can't fathom why so many respected editors are falling for this.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies and if further develop emerge and more RS then could recreate. CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 13:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge One RS justifies keeping the content and shows that it is barely significant enough to deserve a standalone article, atleast for now. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge for now, without prejudice against expanding to a fuller article if shit really hits the fan later (media-wise, not on wiki). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge because there happen to be a list for these, otherwise I would have said to delete. This is a big thing on Wikipedia, but not so big happening elsewhere in the world. Stryn (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. As noted by others above, there is no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. This incident is very important to Wikipedia editors, but as yet is not a topic that has received widespread coverage in independent reliable sources outside Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies for now, without prejudice towards recreation as its own article if more sources appear in the future. The Buzzfeed source is excellent and sufficient to justify inclusion on that page, but one good source is not enough to sustain an independent article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per many comments above, although I would so like to say keep. But at least for now, it fits best as an entry on the list page, rather than as a standalone. But a day or two from now... who knows. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. The main reason I think the article should be merge is because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Only two news source talks about it, which is not enough to pass WP:GNG.  I Need Support  :3 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Merge to user revolt clearly fails WP:DUE, while merge to Wikipedia controversies may fail WP:NOTNEWS. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Benjamin (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why you want the article to be kept?  I Need Support  It has gone downhill 19:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think deleting the article would improve the encyclopedia. Benjamin (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Mentioned in multiple low-quality sources:
 * https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10443&sid=e7e19f1489d246aff0b628356a2bc902
 * https://reclaimthenet.org/wikipedia-banned-for-criticizing-the-foundation/
 * https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/
 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315895
 * I don't think any of the above sources should influence this AfD, but we should be on the lookout for SPAs who get attracted to this AfD because of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see how every source can push its own point of view on the affair just by emphasising different aspects. I don't see many outright inaccuracies, but a lot of spin. – Teratix ₵ 11:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. The "story" is not finished yet, but seems to be winding down. Although some outside coverage has been noted, this is mainly an in-house back-room crisis of confidence and a growth spike in Wikipedia's and WMF's learning curve, but is currently an inside-baseball series of events. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. In case anyone did not see it, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.