Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Lost further reading

Mediation Case: 2006-10-18 Lost further reading
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Santaduck 10:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Articles for deletion/Lost further reading
 * apparent continuation of Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites
 * See also User talk:Flcelloguy for related issue involving the same participants.
 * See also Village Pump discussion on fansite listings regarding a particular site of interest (Lostpedia.com).
 * NOTE: Fansite external links are peripheral to my article in question (Lost further reading), but the acrimonious debate in the above talk pages involve the same parties.
 * However note similar parties of editors involved in Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second_nomination) and at a recent DRV. In other words, a small clique of editors who feel strongly are "guarding" any article even remotely related to this issue.


 * Who's involved?
 * see contributors to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites;


 * What's going on?
 * In the Lost (TV series) article, regular editors of this article are opposed to the inclusion of external links to fan websites, or articles about fan websites. Arguments include notability, appropriateness of inclusion of external links in WP, and parallel cases of other articles about multi-faceted fictional universes (e.g. Star Trek, X-Files, Memory Alpha etc.) that support or contradict the two sides based on arguments of precedence.

Current article is an attempt to sidestep the above issues by following the precedence of articles related to Star Trek, chosen because like Lost, it is also a fictional universe with various facets of official, semi-official, and fan content spanning different media. Lost further reading parallels Star Trek further reading, and the similar Portal:Star Trek.

However the inclusion of external links is the litmus test which has caused regular editors who have been opposed to external links to fan websites in the main Lost (TV series) article, to add delete and speedy delete AFD votes; other content as well as the article's talk page which indicated the motivation for its creation has been ignored in their afd text. My contention is that this issue alone is their motivation for the deletion of the entire article. However note that the analogous model article, Star Trek further reading contains external links.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like to move possibly toward official mediation or request for comments (I'm relatively unfamiliar with these procedures) so that experienced WP editors who are unbiased and previously uninvolved in these discussions can offer their opinion, so that a consistent policy may be implemented across major fictional universe articles.

IMHO the main issue is that of WP "statute" vs. "precedence." WP's 'rules' regarding external links are codified, and raised by the editors asking for deletion. However in the previous discussions, numerous inconsistencies have been raised in the form of long-standing WP articles on fictional universes where external links are valid, or fan websites are considered notable, which is a precedent inconsistent with Lost (TV series)'s main article, or fan websites for Lost.

Note however that the current issue is the deletion of my article: Lost further reading. The secondary issue is the inclusion of external links in this article, and the tertiary one is the inclusion of unofficial fan website links. The main article Lost (TV series) is referenced here because the parties are the same.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Not sure what benefit this would have. I'd like to get a private opinion on Lost further reading, possibly followed by a more public debate with neutral mediators if necessary.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.