Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysterious Universe (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious Universe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After several weeks, no references in reliable sources have appeared to satisfy claims of notability as per WP:N. The previous AfD found this article lacked notability in its present form and I do not see what has changed. All attempts I have made to find suitable references have failed, therefore I suggest it be deleted. DestroHolmes (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears the article was deleted in the last AfD, are there any hints of improvement in the remade version of the article? S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was previously deleted for notability concerns, specifically lack of reliable coverage in secondary sources. As stated in my original nomination, I do not see anything that has changed - there is a paucity of references from reliable sources and a lack of multiple items of media coverage to satisfy WP:N. Also, those commenting may want to note that my recent general clean-up was reverted in its entirety by User:Absolutemetazero (diffs here) and that the present version has WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and citation problems in my opinion. --DestroHolmes (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

THESE ARE THE REFERENCES FROM RELIABLE SOURCES reliable sources which satisfy claims of notability as per WP:N. The previous AfD

NEWS OUTLETS SOURCES : PRWEB

NEWS.COM.AU

They clearly stand for reliable sources and multiple items of media coverage to satisfy WP:N. Regarding PRWEB: News outlet that works with distribution partners such as Yahoo! News, Google News. Regarding NEWS.COM.AU: A widely known Australian news outlet.

DestroHolmes failure to see the changes may not be the most reliable point of view given to the fact that his edits and alleged clean up selectively erased the reliable sources. Please note that his edits worked more as surreptitious academic protectionism than acceptable encyclopedic criteria. What kind of concensus can we have if only DestroHolmes makes all the decisions?

Regarding recent edits by User:Absolutemetazero the present version does NOT have issues with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, nor citation problems and rather it was reverted (diffs here) because it had been consistently suppressed by DestroHolmes. Wikipedia is about collaboration and not arbitrary deletion by one person such as DestroHolmes who seems to be defending Benjamin Grundy's interests instead of respecting encyclopedic guidelines.

I want to publicly denounce DestroHolmes and his attempts to suppress this page and its complaints of online fraud despite the addition of reliable sources. Furthermore, I want to publicly question DestroHolmes's real identity as a a possible acquintance of Benjamin Grundy or as Benjamin Grundy himself.

The edit war with Tonkacres/Zhenboy/Destroholmes was deliberately started when Benjamin Grundy and Aaron were sent private messages on facebook notifying them about the changes on Wikipedia and in less than an hour (Australian time) the edit war had started.

DestroHolmes then proceeded to block the accounts and then acted as expected: started protecting Benjamin Grundy.

The page was then subsequently changed by DestroHolmesin a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the evidence of possible online fraud in the section "Breach of contract" DestroHolmes was clearly manipulated to show how biased his views were.

The main purpose of the edit war was to draw DestroHolmes into making arbitrary decisions and cast light into his surreptitious academic protectionism and abuse of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines by blocking users and making personal decisions to delete a page he has a conflict of interest with. Unfortunately for DestroHolmes his editing history clearly show his protectionism towards a podcaster involved with online fraud. Should wikipedia rely on DestroHolmes as a supporter of online fraud?

Please feel free to compare his edits since now it is too late for him to change them or cover his tracks.

This page should not be deleted because it has consistent relevance to the Wikiproject Podcasting as well as present and future Podcasters interested in avoiding the same pitfalls Benjamin Grundy went through. Benjamin Grundy did not respect acceptable business practices and all his listeners were lost due to accusations of Online fraud and numerous complaints.

Lastly, allow me to ask a logical question: Which one has more value?

A)Mysterious Universe and its possible case of online fraud where victims stated the events. B)An inane internet meme such as "Raptor Jesus"

Both are facing deletion yet only one has relevance to Newmedia and Podcasting.

If an article such as "Raptor Jesus" finds space in Wikipedia where does wikipedia take its cues for credibility? Furthermore, does keeping "Raptor Jesus" as an article make Wikipedia different from Uncyclopedia's "Raptor Jesus" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, Absolutemetazero


 * Keep I search Google news, but that too common a phrase, so I search "Mysterious Universe" and "podcast" and get only two results. One links to forums, so I ignore it, the other seems like a notable mention, and Google list it as a news site, but on the side of the article is a video of a girl stripping off her clothing.  I'm thinking notable news sites do not involve porn ads on them.  Anyway, mainstream media coverage normally doesn't cover podcast.  The article has references backing up its claims of how popular this is among podcast.  Does anyone dispute that?  Are those references not considered valid proof of notability?   D r e a m Focus  19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue as I see it is with notability, not popularity. According to Wikipedia guidlines, to be notable "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". To summarize the article in its present form has references that include:
 * 3 press releases (not independent)
 * 1 ranking in a non-notable podcast directory
 * 1 blog posting from news.com.au
 * 2 reviews from non-notable podcast review sites
 * 1 mention in a non-notable podcast recording
 * 2 reviews from random blogs
 * 1 posting from a non-notable web forum
 * 2 postings from a consumer protection organization
 * None of these, with the perhaps the exception of blog positing from news.com.au, qualifies as a reliable source for determination of notability. Until Mysterious Universe receives significant, independent coverage in the independent media, the topic fails to meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least in my understanding of the guidelines. Please remember that popularity does not equal notability. --DestroHolmes (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as it fails the WP:GNG for lack of third-party coverage. I love the chunk of text above left by an IP self-identified as "Absolutemetazero". However, I see nothing else in that wall of text other than addressing the nominator, and practically other-stuff-exists-ing the now-deleted Raptor Jesus against this podcast. Nothing, except for the first few sentences, argues for the rescue of this article, and the references provided aren't acceptable except for the news.com.au one. WP:GNG calls for more than one, though. talking  birds  15:00, 11 October 2009 (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.