Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Leet

Leet

 * Article is no longer a featured article

This article was made Featured in 2004, but seems to have fallen prey to the culture it tries to describe. No references whatsoever. It lacks a good formal structure- history should be split from overview, Leet needs to me moved down, and have the tables reduced in size. The page overall is too much of a glossary and the section on Leet contains far too many examples. The Leet section particularly seems badly written and probably belongs in Pwn. In parts, including the infobox, the article asserts itself as a constructed language rather than a simple slang, like Cockney. This is no longer an example of our best work. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This nomination appears to be making a WP:POINT. Neto objects to a template on the Leet page, which he has waged a slow revert war over in the last couple of days (,, , and ). There is now a discussion on the talk page about this template. FARCing an article because of a template on it seems rather silly. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (and by that I mean keep, in case it wasn't clear). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I take this FARC in good faith, but it seems like to me that much of what Netoholic brings up are not necessarily objections to the quality of the article and whether or not it meets our standards, but easily fixable structural differences and issues with the content that should be discussed in Talk (i.e. conlang vs. slang). The article could use some serious pruning and minor reformating, but overall I think it is worth keeping featured.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article fails against even the most basic featured article criteria, specifically, it does not even have a reference section nor does it use inline citations. It needs major work to bring it up to those standards. Removal today does not mean it can't be renominated later. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep:
 * 1. The article covers an informal slang concept, and furthermore a relatively new subject area, and as such it is not feasible for it to have "reputable" references as to most other articles. There are no "experts" on leet culture per se, and thus there is little or no "expert opinion" either. Even if you did get some other information, they would just get their sources from the same people, the same environment, as those who wrote it in Wikipedia in the first place. In short, while references would not hurt this article, they are comparatively not vital.
 * 2. This article suffers from "starsickness" as other popular-subject featured articles where it is more of a matter of opinion than fact. People start contributing bits and pieces fine on their own, but gradually degrading the article. Ironically, this happens because the article is GOOD, not because its bad. The solution to that is selective reversal and systematic copyediting.
 * 3. And to top it off, the article is a prime example of Wikipedia being able to produce very well written and comprehensive, and comparatively neutral to most other sources, information about a popular subject few are willing to tackle precisely because of its popularity. Leet is the kind of article Wikipedia can and does show its unique qualities through. If it has side effects, deal with them, rather then demoting the article.
 * Personally I hate online "leet" when I see it, but I do appreciate the article ABOUT it as being one of the best neutral references about it, and one of the very few places to read about "leet" without the article beeing "leetified" itself.Elvarg 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Ignoring all issues of "slow revert wars", I have to agree that this article falls terribly short of modern FA standards. I can't pass up the references requirement, simply because people who speak and grok leet also edit the Wikipedia.  By that logic, we should let all articles on ethnic groups be filled by people who claim to belong to those groups, never mind what is actually verifiable.  The prose is far from brilliant, or even compelling, and the unorganized deluge of inessential examples makes large sections more unreadable than C code.  "Leet in videogaming" is particularly bad:  it's a trivia section in all but name.  This page is drowning in the cruft its subject naturally attracts, and requires extraordinary measures to return it to useability.  Anville 08:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is still of great status and was constantly being improved above the original article. I agree that this is simple a WP:POINT on the part of Netoholic.  This seems like little more than a very un-wikilike attempt to "get back" at the users who opposed and ultimately trumped his removal of the language template from the article page.  Unfortunately as a result of the relative fame of its subject matter among the internet community, it is subjected to a great deal of cruft and personal agendas of one-time editors.  Which is frequently under discussion and is usually reverted on sight for a more consensus-formed approach.  While there may be a section or two that is slightly questionable, to revoke its featured status would be a grave overreaction thaty will achieve nothing.  There are several other articles that warrant this debate far more than this one.  A much more productive approach would be to adress the issues in question rather than simply cause further harm.  Unlike the article below these are all things that can easily be adressed on the talk page.-- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Changing my vote.  While I stand by the majority of my statements, I have come to the conclusion that the article would be better served by having this status revoked, and possibly even tagged for cleanup, so that it may get the attention it needs to be properly repaired. -- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 07:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "get back" at who? This article is the result of dozens of editors, only three of which I have disagreed with. I'm not petty. I made this removal nomination only because, having first read it, then objected to the language assertion, I discovered it was actually featured (which seems to have been a mistake since this poll indicates it should have been removed). I cannot imagine the present article ever being featured on the Main Page at this point in time, so I made this nomination in good faith. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove -- regardless of whatever other points are being made by this nomination, references are an absolute requirement. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See WP:IAR for details. In general, there are only one ABSOLUTE rule to WP (apart from legal issues such as copyrights) and that is NPOV. Everything else must be approached with some elasticity, and I think this article, due to its nature (see my reasons above) is the exception that makes the rule. Elvarg 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, IAR is perhaps the best page to make the point, since the explicit driving force of it is to remind us that we are here to make an encyclopedia. Which is why our featured articles require references. To say that references don't exist is simply to say that the information is unverifiable; verifiability is defined in terms of references. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement "the sky is blue" is verifiable and can be referenced, but do you REALLY need to see references for it every time it comes up? Elvarg 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that, even for a statement like "the sky is blue", it's still appropriate to have a verifiable source cited (see Diffuse sky radiation). -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The sky is blue, unless it's cloudy, or you look at night, or if an oil well is burning nearby, or if it's during a solar eclipse... or if you're standing on another planet. Often, we only make blatantly obvious statements when there are in fact subtleties involved.  Otherwise, what would be the point of speaking at all?  In an encyclopaedia, if I see the phrase "the sky is blue", I expect to see a phrase following it, like "due to Rayleigh scattering".  A statement like this then deserves a source.  Anville 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove -- falls short in terms of accuracy, citations, and has far too much flame war drama on it. How bad is this that we're accusing people of "getting back" in this section? Also, if this were just getting back, there wouldn't be as many removes as there are, especially from users like me, who aren't involved in Netoholic's e-drama. Swatjester 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Removal -- I think that this would still be a good FA if it had some references, I don't really buy into the other critiques levelled against it. If some resources can be found for this page, I would support its status as an FA. KrazyCaley 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would also like to halt this process while I take time to copyedit (per above) and further neutral-ize the article. Finding sources would be difficult if not impossible. I have asked for help from other communities which would have more... "expert" advice. I can't see this as being anything less than a transparent attempt by the nominator to harm the article after a protracted argument with other maintainers of the article. It's a classic "I'm taking my ball and going home" action. I also find it rather comical that after we had been arguing about the infobox for some days, Netoholic chooses to read the article. After strenuously objecting to its status as a polyglot/pidgin/dialect/language/whatever. That, too, is rather telling of this little crusade of his. Avriette 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Halting the process is not going to happen, however if genuine improvement occurs, and objections are met, I am open to extending the deadline. But there needs to be progress, not delays.  --(Farc closer) Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Appears to largely consist of original research; lacks reliable sources. An example: editors are attempting to decide whether it may be classified as a constructed language based on personal interpretations of Webster's Dictionary definitions and other Wikipedia articles.  If that's not original research, what is? Much of the prose is tortured.  (e.g. This is symptomatic of the desire or affected desire to elude comprehension by others unfamiliar with the foreign art form.)  The "Leet in Videogaming" section is excessive and would probably be best split to its own page.  An article that ventures so far from RS and so close to OR is not among the best Wikipedia has to offer as a reliable encyclopedia.  --Tabor 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How is that an interpretation? Its a dictionary definition used as such.-- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is in applying a dictionary definition to a settle a technical question by making interpretive claims. For example, suppose the question under discussion was: Is arsenic a metal?  I go to my trusty dictionary and find that a metal is: Any of a category of electropositive elements that usually have a shiny surface, are generally good conductors of heat and electricity, and can be melted or fused, hammered into thin sheets, or drawn into wires.  So taking that definition I say, "well arsenic looks pretty shiny to me, heat and electrical conductivity seem pretty good, etc. so I've determined it is a metal."  It is just as inapproprate to follow this sort of heuristic using a dictionary definition of language&mdash;which, it should be noted, describes language in the aggregate and says nothing about what constitutes "a language" as distinct from another&mdash;to decide whether Leet may be considered a distinct language.
 * On a different topic, I don't think adding unpublished student papers really helps the references section, save to make it look less empty.
 * The article promulgates implausibly precise but unreferenced facts. Created in 1980?  Where did this "fact" come from?
 * For anyone that has not looked at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR recently, I think it is instructive to take another glance back at the standards outlined there just as a sanity check on how we evaluate article quality. And keep in mind that I am not saying that there shouldn't be an article for Leet&mdash;just that it genuinely falls short of lofty moniker: "the best Wikipedia has to offer". --Tabor 04:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove I agree with the previous reasoning this article is below standard you need to work to get FA back Discordance 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - Fails to meet current featured article standards. FCYTravis 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - There is too much in this article that needs referencing, and some content is even speculation. In addition, many parts are just silly, such as the random mention of the J/ψ particle or the claim that most major websites are run by people who people who, having formerly been in the "1337" stage, have transended to "stage three", using proper grammar and sentences. There are several little inconsistencies, such as referring to "pwn" as a misspelling; wouldn't pwn be misspelled in English, but properly spelled in 1337? The prose is not compelling or brilliant; too much of the article is given to lists, some of which is duplicative. --Pagrashtak 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - contains alleged original research, doesn't adequately cite references, and needs improvement. Further, this article will probably always be undergoing rapid change, so I'm not sure if it's ever going to remain in a featurable state for long without some very diligent copyediting on an ongoing basis. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - too many examples, trivia, lists, list-like paragraphs and general cruft. Absolutely agree with Anville above that "this page is drowning in the cruft its subject naturally attracts". Needs serious cleanup. Kosebamse 10:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)