Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabarnia


 * 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 keep. The clear consensus is that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Tabarnia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has not been improved. Has been with the disputed neutrality label since January 2018 yet nobody has improved the article. Information has stopped flowing shortly after february 2018 (newest source is from march 2018). Press sources do not agree in what Tabarnia is nor its purpose. If it is satirical or a political movement. Others propose it is an astroturfing campaign or grassroots movement. "Political claims" section is an invention sourced from a blog (bcnisnotcat.es). Apparently those claims was propagated and magnified by the media. There is also a section devoted to Historical revisionism which does not cite any verifiable source, only anti-catalanist propaganda. Filiprino (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Non-improvement is not a valid reason for deleting a whole article. If the article needs improvement, improve it.  Impru20 talk 19:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete . The article meets at least reasons 4, 6 and 7 for deleting and even 8. Impru20 stated a fallacy of false dilemma by ignoring the rest of given reasons. Filiprino (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are the nominator, so it is not needed that you propose to delete it twice in the same discussion.
 * Secondly, you are the nominator, so it was up to you to thoroughly explain the reasons for deletion, not for others to guess them out. You have presented the article's non-improvement (with a short explanation of the issues in need of improvement and which, according to you, were not improved) as the only reason for deletion. You have not explained any one of the new reasons you are suddenly numbering now (4, 6, 7 and 8) in response to my comment.
 * On the now numbered reasons:
 * You have not explained how this is "spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content", so it does not meet reason 4.
 * I cannot see how it does meet reason 6 when a lot of sources are cited in the article (and if you think that BBC, El País, El Mundo, RTVE and eldiario.es (among others) are not reliable sources, you should probably take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise, it would meet WP:VERIFY so reason 6 does not apply. I also think you are confusing the concept of an article being an hoax with that of an article which is describing an hoax. It is not the same).
 * For the same reason, reason 7 does not apply either, as reliable sources are indeed cited throughout the article (that there is a section lacking source does not make the whole article eligible for deletion).
 * As for reason 8, seeing as how the article does indeed meet the notability guideline, being that there are reliable sources providing a significant coverage of the subject, it would not apply either.
 * For all of it, my vote is against deleting the article. If you think it needs improvement, then improve it rather than propose its deletion altogether.
 * Also, I do not think I have been disrespectful to you, so please tone down your comments as they seem somewhat aggressive. Please, don't be an ostrich. Thank you.  Impru20 talk 20:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The spam is in the "Political claims" and "Historical revisionism" section.
 * The only article available in Google Scholar regarding the matter is this one: https://www.naiz.eus/es/actualidad/noticia/20180101/tabarnia-y-la-construccion-del-adversario, a low quality article. It says that the influencers of this fad social network phenomena ocurred between 16 and 26 December 2017 are 12 twitter users: se han detectado 12 comunidades estadísticamente significativas en la red. Mediante el análisis de sus líderes (los más mencionados), sabemos que la comunidad más grande, la azul, la conforman fundamentalmente independentistas como @jmangues, @arnauriwz, @jonathanmartinz, @CNICatalunya o @ericcatalunya. El resto de comunidades, las lideran usuarios españolistas como @tabarnia, @Bcnisnotcat_, @josepramonbosch, @dexamina o @DolcaCatalunya. The rest of sources (newspapers) are just disseminating what these actors said. Tabarnia article is of low quality and there is no source available to improve it. A collection of tweets and anonymous blog entries doesn't make an encyclopedic article. Filiprino (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then your issue is with two sections only. Good. You must know that reason 4 means that the article itself must be spam for it to merit deletion. Just because some of the content within an article may be considered as spam does not mean the whole article deserves deletion.
 * I see The Guardian, BBC and other English reliable sources cited throughout the article which describe this as a parody and give some input on it . Even if we were to take what you said for granted (that newspapers just disseminate "what some actors said" and that we should consider only the source you provide), the very fact that English reliable sources consider this notable enough to merit a specific coverage make it obvious that this "phenomena" (as you call it) does comply with the notability guideline, because it would mean that the topic has achieved enough notability to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * An article being of low quality is not by itself a reason for deletion. Related to this, check WP:NORUSH.
 * And all of this was your own opinion. But I also see from Talk:Tabarnia that you have been engaged throughout the last months in content disputes in the article's talk, and that you are proposing to delete it just now despite you yourself having actively contributed to it in the past. You must know that deletion proposals are not meant as a way to circumvent discussion and/or to supersede consensus when you do not agree with it. If you think the article needs improvement, seek to improve it. As of now, I do not see any reason as to why should this article be deleted. But that is my opinion.  Impru20 talk 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you consider that tabloid journalism is a valid source then we can accept Tabarnia is an article in good shape without neutral point of view problems, something asserted in the tag at the head of the article which has been sitting there for months. Filiprino (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you consider The Guardian or BBC as tabloid journalism? Then surely the more obvious it becomes that this deletion request has little sense. Besides, all of the issues you raise can be solved through editing and discussion, and none of which justify deleting the whole article. This is a discussion for article deletion, not for solving out the article's possible NPOV issues.  Impru20 talk 23:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The articles provided yes, are tabloid journalism. No matter if they are written for (not by) The Guardian or for the BBC. Sensationalism can appear in any newspaper. It is not science what we are talking about. Filiprino (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at another deletion discussion here in which you have been involved, it looks like you do consider El Mundo, El País, eldiario.es and other such sources as reliable depending on the occasion. I cannot see significant differences from the sources provided there with the ones provided here (except that the ones in here do cover the issue directly), so it would seem like your criteria for choosing what to dub as "sensationalism" is dependant on both the topic and on your own personal point of view. Even so, "sensationalism" is not a reason for deletion or an attribution which makes an article to fail to meet the notability or the verifiability guidelines (sensationalist topics would merit inclusion in Wikipedia if being notable and verifiable), so I am lost as to what is your point here other than trying to undervalue such sources. Do you wish to remove the article because it has not been improved, or because you do consider it as a sensationalist topic? Note that none of which is a reason for deletion.
 * Also, after seeing WPancake's comment below and after checking your record at this article's Spanish wiki counterpart and while I will not engage into a content/conduct dispute here (as this is not the place for it), I will remind you again that deletion is not an alternative to try to circumvent consensus and/or discussion.  Impru20 talk 08:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's consensus on the media you might find it reliable. But notably the reliance is found because there is proof of what they say. Photographies and other content which is not anonymous and clearly identifies the people involved. So it is not a matter of WP:PPOV. What other users think or say is irrelevant. They might be affected by a strong bias towards whatever is their bias. The same as you, seeing your record too. It's amazing how all of you keep using ad hominem falacies. Filiprino (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * If you think that the sources cited throughout the article are unreliable, you should bring the issue at WP:RSN. Otherwise, yes, it is only your personal viewpoint against these sources' well-known reputation as reliable sources.
 * And what is my record on the issue, if may I ask? I have not been involved in the Tabarnia article at all ever since its inception. You have been heavily involved in it, and your deletion request so far seems to come only from your own inability to convince others of your viewpoints on the article's content (as may be seen from Talk:Tabarnia, Talk:Tabarnia,  Talk:Tabarnia/Archive 1, etc). As I said, for requesting an article's deletion there must be a valid reason for deletion, which does not seem to be the case here. I think we are now going around in circles here.  Impru20 talk 12:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the answers you write down here, I think that who has been heavily invested in the article is you, not me. My contributions are minimal. And your text is overflowing this AfD discussion. Filiprino (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your contributions were so minimal so as to see you involved in several discussions in the article's talk in defense of them (even having a whole section specifically to discuss your own edits, which some people seemed to dub as controversial), as well as seeing you blocked in the Spanish wiki for your contributions at the Spanish counterpart of the article. You are free to think as you wish about my "investments" in the article, yet it is easily verifiable that I am entirely uninvolved both from the article's editing history ever since its creation as well as from any of the discussions in the talk page. Now, if you are still unwilling to explain how this meets any one of the reasons for deletion, I think we may end the discussion here, because it is obvious you are not even close to convince me of changing my stance from "Keep" to "Delete".  Impru20 talk 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, this chit-chat reached its end long ago. Your continuous use of ad hominem falacies does not make you any good. Filiprino (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keeping repeating your accusation of me using "fallacies" (something you have done ever since your very first reply to me), as well as other unproven claims, will not make your deletion request to be more successful either. Now, I suggest that if you have any personal issue with me on this issue, that you really wish to have addressed, bring it to WP:ANI so that an admin may scrutinize both sides' comments. Otherwise, you should limit yourself to try to explain how does Tabarnia meet any of the reasons for deletion. Thank you.  Impru20 talk 13:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I struck the duplicate !vote from the nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Voters should be warned that the nominating user has been indefinitely banned from Spanish Wikipedia for constant and aggressive POV-pushing in articles related to Catalan nationalism, including pulling a very similar stunt with the Tabarnia article, which was considered an attempt at boycotting the article and immediately shut down by the administrators. Not only did this attitude lend him numerous suspensions, he refused to learn from them and lashed out angrily at Spanish administrators, leading to his indefinite block. He has since continued his crusade in other-language wikis such as this one. WPancake (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: And perhaps warn these rabid pro-independence editors and get them to desist from this ludicrous behavior. They are engaging in a systematic propaganda war on wikipedia. Fortunately its just a couple of them. I have come across some of their recent edits which involves biographies of living persons which they oppose being described as "nazis" without any credible source backing this. Articles with this content is contrary to wikipedia policy and most certainly needs attention of both the persons subject of this vitriol online and that of admins to get this to stop. We cannot have wikipedia become a platform for slandering opposition politicans. As for Tabarnia, the AfD is so ridiculous no comment is needed. Miska5DT (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC) (Blocked per SPI; user editing in violation of a block)


 * Speedy Keep: A simple search reveals that there is large amount of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Clearly meets WP:GNG. The nomination makes no sense. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Impru20: neutrality and sourcing problems aren't a reason to delete, they're a reason to fix edits. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notability is well-established with significant coverage from an abundance of reliable sources. On top of all of the sources cited by the article, there are another 72,000 results on Google News. Nomination is erroneous enough to warrant a speedy keep. —  Newslinger  talk   23:44, 23 July 2018 (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.