Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myspace invites and out of control parties


 * 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. Consensus appears to read that this was largely original research with BLP concerns, and its value to Wikipedia was questionable. Some raised the concern that it served as a coatrack after the conclusion of several recent deletion discussions. Aside from this, the title is hardly adequate - "out of control" is an emotive term. While a move to a different title could have been contemplated with a different consensus, that's not the case here. Orderinchaos 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Myspace invites and out of control parties

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A collection of unrelated news articles bundled together under a supposedly common theme does not an encyclopedia article make. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   12:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I read it, but this is not encyclopedic. I agree it is interesting, and yes I'd read this in a newspaper or tabloid if I was searching for the subject online, but I cannot agree with this being placed in Wikipedia.  Sorry.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly if they were unrelated. They however are: they are all about Parties advertised on Myspace, that ended up in some cases in riot situations (with 500 people attacking police cars) and shootings. A modern phenomenon of interest to some, and no doubt a phenomenon that will be occuring more often as social networking is utilised more in society. If this article may not seem relevant to you, however I beleive it is, and will become more relevant as more of these situations occur. Cheers! User:trijah
 * I appreciate that you took the time to create the article with reliable references, but I'm just not sure it's the sort of thing that's appropriate for Wikipedia. Certainly the article's name needs to be changed per WP:MOS as "out of control parties" is informal slang and "Myspace" should be "MySpace". Perhaps this article could be extended to include other social networking websites such as Bebo and Facebook, and could be broadened out to cover things beyond "out of control parties". We'll see what others think.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be modified and added to, but to delete it seems rash. It is an obvious phenomenen that seems to keep occuring, and in fact, getting worse ( Considering the recent event with 500 people attacking police cars, and a police Helicopter being called in). I am sort of suprised there isn't something on Wikipedia already. Also happy to have the title changed as per Wikipedia guidelines, good suggestion.User:Trijah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trijah (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plethebest (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cannot see the usefulness of this article, as this article appears to be a poorly hashed up article consisting of news articles. Willirennen (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment, I want to say in support of my delete as MySpace and other networking sites shouldn't be made a scapegoat for these out of control parties as these parties-ran-amok have always been a common occurance, just watch any teen film produced as far back as you can (say the 1970s) and you will know why. Willirennen (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Guys - I thought about including this on the Myspace page, however it is quite big, so under Wikipedia guidelines, it should probably have its own page. Instead, I have linked to it from the MySpace main article.User:Trijah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trijah (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge (Selective merge) Not a bad article, and perhaps deserving of inclusion in the MySpace article, with some trimming. If it would be too big a section in the MySpace page, then leave out trivia, extraneous detail, BLP problematic material and original research and it will get shorter. Fifty years ago there were parties planned by minors when the parents were away, which resulted in police presence, property damage and injuries when "party crashers" heard about them and the attendance swelled. See the 1983 film Risky Business. Today, the social networking sites merely augment what would probably have occurred anyway. A telephone tree (when someone tells 4 friends, they each tell 4 friends, etc, etc) could accomplish about the same thing. What is needed is multiple reliable sources not merely giving the initial news account of each party that got out of control, but giving an overview of the phenomenon, much like this Wikipedia article does. It borders on WP:synthesis. Electronic media do offer a greater ability to assemble a Flash mob quicker than word of mouth and phoning, so I do not rule out that this is a valid topic. But I do not want to see it become a mere listing of parties where the house got messed up and the police were called. Some reliable third party reference is needed to screen out original research. For now, it could be included in the MySpace article, with only examples cited by overview articvles in the press. Edison (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I suggested this page a day or two back in the deletion discussion over Corey-whats-his-face (the Australian kid). This sort of thing clearly needs mentioning about myspace as it has made quite big news (whether justly or not) and the myspace page would be a bit too big if it mentioned everything about the site- which is absolutely huge...Perhaps move it to a more general page about myspace in the media where other things can be mentioned too (i.e. all those parental fears over stalkers on myspace that the press likes to makes a big deal of and that sort of thing)--Him and a dog 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads as a blend of News and Essay, both of which wouldn't belong.  Permanance of notability is questionable at best.  Pharmboy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's title and thesis makes it clear that the topic is a POV observation. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable POV, OR, BLP concerns. Blank for protection of minors per BLP after. Lawrence Cohen  18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Multiple instances have occured, and the general problem has been noticed in some news sources. So there's not an OR issue. Nor is there a BLP issue when the incidents have been reported each in major news sources. Even if the individual incidents are not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS, the collection is as a whole. I would maybe suggest moving it to the more neutral title "Myspace and parties". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes agrees - Myspace and parties is a lot better title. Good suggestion. User:Trijah
 * Delete to counter the reasoning above, novel synthesis of ideas is still original research. Partys happen.  Myspace exists.  Sometimes, people on Myspace throw parties.  That this series of events happens can be put together from reliable sources.  That the events listed in the article have a common theme outside of superficial coincidences is entirely original research, and as such, should be deleted.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a synthesis. The observation that these events are occuring due to myspace has been made in news sources. See for example . JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes not a novel synthesis of ideas. This concept has been mentioned in two non news articles, referenced in the article discussing the concept of inviting people to parties. I certianly wasn't the first person to discuss the topicUser:Trijah.
 * Delete. Fails on grounds of OR, non-notability, and quite possibly BLP. The atrocious un-encyclopedic writing style doesn't inspire confidence either. (I realize that's not grounds for deletion; but I think it's symptomatic of the page's lack of understanding of what the wikipedia is.) Doops | talk 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think re writing it in a better style would be a better solution than deleting it. This is obvously an important topic, and relevant, given recent events. One of these events is already actually listed on the myspace pageUser:Trijah
 * As I said, of course bad writing is not grounds for deletion. But this article is by its very nature incapable of being written in an encyclopedic style: it is a tabloid newspaper feature article by nature. The title is a good rubric: if we're making up the page title from scratch, then the odds are that the subject is probably not encyclopedic. Doops |  talk 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is NOT original research, and (adding further comment following on from JoshuaZ's rebuttal below) as also noted by other comments above, when two items are put together synthetically in this way it is IMHO original research! The alternative - which is not helpful at all - is that Wikipedia can be used to connect any two or more other sources into any article of choice by any editor.-- VS  talk 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As has already been discussed that's not an issue here because we have other sources that make the connection for us. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my previous comment; there is no synthesis since the connection of parties at myspace have gotten out of control has already occurred in the sources. We aren't making that connection. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, agrees, as has been mentioned before, there is no synthesis since the connection of parties at myspace have gotten out of control has already in news articles and other sources in the article. It is not against Wikipedia guidelines to list instances of a concept that has previously been discussed, in fact this is common in Wikipedia articles.trijah
 * Delete, just because it happens to have been reported in the news and be true doesn't mean that it makes an encyclopedia article. There have indeed been a few cases of parties which were advertised on MySpace and got out of hand, but pulling a few examples of that together doesn't make a good article. If there was some wider phenomenon then it might be worth a discussion, but I don't think there's anything to say here other than that such a correlation exists. After all, MySpace doesn't 'cause' out-of-hand parties, it's just a means by which they might be publically advertised to a great many people. It only warrants a brief mention on the MySpace page. -- Mithent (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete at present, largely per Mithent. Some parties turn feral - and some of these have been advertised on MySpace. There is perhaps scope for an article on "out of control parties" (although a better title should be found), assuming that the perception that there are more of these now than a few years ago is accurate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: it jumped off the page to me that -as a reader - I was supposed to agree that something was terribly wrong with some service being provided by the online community, but the article sure did NOT do a good job of defining that service. --Revanche (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'comment And we have yet another news source making the connection between online invitations and probelmatic parties:. We now have three sources that make the connection for us, 2 of which explicitly connect to Myspace. The OR argument is simply not credible. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, what we have is links that show that some parties have become online phenomena. We don't have enough to show this is a concept as such discussed at length in reliable sources.  A bunch of unrelated articles showing that sometimes, people with Myspace accounts throw wild parties does NOT mean that there is a larger issue that needs documenting.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We now have multiple sources that mention this concept. What precisely do you want additionally? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the links between these events in the article (such as they are) are original research. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge While properly sourced, the article title is a non-notable neologism. I can go to various news sources and find four stories about any topic I invent, but that doesn't make the topic notable.  I suggest merging the content into the articles about the relevant social media sites. Jehochman  Talk 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Myspace article is already very long and already has many separate issues. Also, we can't delete and merge per the GFDL. We can merge adn leave a redirect. But that would still have the issue that the main article is too long as it is. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the majority of this article is newspaper style coverage of the details of individual events which are all irrelevant besides demonstrating the the worst case scenarios. Only at the beginning is there any content about the topic, using refs (5) (9) and (10), none of which are scholarly.  This article is merely a COATRACK on which to hang four tabloid write-ups. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Fork article started after this Afd was closed, Synthesized into COATRACK . Source  is by lined from agenicies so its a rehash of another article,  is news blog hosted on the SMH site, while I wouldnt throw it away it wouldnt hold it up as a reliable source to establish notability either. Gnangarra 12:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand it - when it suits wikipedians this place is trying to be as clean arsed as the Brittanica - yet there are all sorts of entries on things that the Britannica folk wouldn'd touch with a 10 foot barge pole. There are articles on all sorts of other crimes, crime trends, specific criminals and so on - this is a new and emerging trend it's big enough that a whole entry for it exists more than just a stubb and this is one of the effects of the rampant viral distribution of information across the internet - it's a trend that deserves it's own entry. 124.170.99.251 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia isn't the place to document new trends, nor does it try to be the most cutting edge source of information on what is hot "today". The entire premise of notablity is that it must be permanant, and not the hot topic du jour.  Pharmboy (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to Pharmboy's comments, the article as currently written simply talks about a small group of incidents. For this to be a "trend" which an encyclopedia (remembering that Wikipedia is precisely that) should have an article on, there needs to be some kind of analysis being reported here. Not analysis by the author of the article, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - Simply to keep Wikipedia a respectable place to gain useful information. Why not just post it on Wikinews? Samuraidrive (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - This has as many potential BLP explosions as that other AfD/DRV/MfD. Why is it still here? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point DHMO. Unfortunately I have !voted else I would move to closing one way or another myself.  Any other admins ready to take the plunge?-- VS  talk 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 Keep  This is a sociological phenomenon of the current era and therefore a valid part of today's experience. The cult of celebrity is rampant and online communities such as My Space both reflect this phenomenon and jam it at the same time by substituting "ordinary" people for the publicists' overpaid darlings. The instant communication and rapid fame offered by new technologies is with us - like it or not. I think that it is highly important that this page stays especially after the extremely conservative decision to pull the pages on the Narre Warren incedent. CNN, BBC, The Times etc have paid attention to this story - bloggers and newspaper forums include many positive as well as negative comments - and Wikipedia is like a pious old grandmother and loses touch with life as it happens around us. Turning the story into a discussion of the overall phenomenon is a legitimate way to reference these incidents - if you think there are issues about BLP. OK you may not like wild streaming parties summoned by call outs via new media formats, but its out there and pulling the Wikipedia article won't stop it. Pulling Wikipedia articles on modern phenomena does nothing except make Wikipedia look foolish, pedantic and tired. People will talk about these things and surely Wikipedia should be responsive to the mood of the era

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)  Keep Agrees with Bebe. Good on you. I agree, I think its backward thinking to remove articles that deal with modern social phenomena. This situation will continue to occur. Social Networking sites are not going to disapear. If its deleted now, you can be sure this information will reappear, so presumably the research will have to be done all over again. It is a fact that these situations are happening in the real world and as any Encyclopedia should, Wikipedia should reflect concepts in the real world. If the concept of mass electronic communication gone wrong, resulting in riots, shootings and international attention can't be recorded in Wikipedia...then I say there is something wrong with wikipedia. If people are unhappy with the structure, then fix it up or add to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment below Deathlibrarian's opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a coatrack for the now-deleted Corey Delaney article. Also mostly original research, in that all of the references seem to refer to the individual incidents, not to the phenomenon as a whole.  Lankiveil (complaints 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
 * The problem with Bebe's argument, though, is that the only way in which this article "deal[s] with modern social phenomena" is though the authors connecting the dots, which isn't something that's supposed to go on here. If we look at the sources, only the last two take any kind of broad view of this phenomenon, and one of them at least is a blog. The other sources simply back up the fact that this or that party (generally the one in Melbourne recently) was advertised on MySpace, turned feral and resulted in various consequences for the host, whose article has already been deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By saying "connecting the dots" you seem to be saying the author is using diverse findings to come to some crazy conclusion. The article mereley mentions where Myspace has been used to send out party invites as reported in the media, and the parties have gone out of control. The article does not advocate a position, does not imply anything about myspace, does not advocate an unpublished idea. It merely states what is stated in the articles already. It does not say "msypace is responsible for out of control parties" it says "There have been these four situations involved and Myspace was a factor - and now people are warning against invites on Myspace". Nothing outrageous or illogical, in my honest opinion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the article here says (in essence) the following: People have parties. They advertise same on MySpace or elsewhere. As a result of these advertisements, the parties become out of control. What the sources say (with the exception of the blog, which largely doesn't come into things is: Someone had a party. The party was advertised online. The party became out of control. The italicised phrase which the article is saying isn't in the sources, and that's what I'm meaning when I said "connecting the dots". It seems like an entirely uncontroversial conclusion to draw, but as an encyclopedia, it's not Wikipedia's place to draw that conclusion. Even if we downgrade it into MySpace being a "factor" in the parties turning feral, the sources don't actually say that. Unless and until a reliable source says "the reason that this party went nuts was because masses of people turned up to it because it was advertised on MySpace/Facebook/social networking site X", then original research is being conducted here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * -Turning the story into a discussion of the overall phenomenon is a legitimate way to reference these incidents... Turning one thing into another is called Original research to address such occurrences we have a policy WP:OR, turn multiple things into one is still original research, its also a coat rack when multiple things are combined over a single commonality and a synthesis when conclusions are created from these. Gnangarra 12:58, 20 January 2008 (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.