Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't use MySpace as a source


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was redirect.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't use MySpace as a source
sourcing and linking already covered by WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL, essay content is therefore scope creep. ALR 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally redundant and has ONE incoming link, at Deletion review/Log/2007 January 13. And there nothing is said that isn't covered by writing "Myspace is not reliable", which is what he already did. No history will be lost. --tjstrf talk 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite I'm the guy who linked to it on that page. I think the page could serve well to quickly explain why MySpace isn't acceptable to those who "can't be bothered" with the policy and guideline pages. JuJube 11:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, because MySpace is, in essence, a blog. Blogs are personal opinions/original research. Ergo, this is redundant because WP:NOR exists. PTO 04:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete restatement of WP:RS -- Selmo  (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to either WP:RS or WP:EL per nom. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an essay, move to the userpage of whoever wrote it. I've posted to the mailing list about reliability of sources. Depending on who wrote the myspace page and what it is supposed to be sourcing, it can be a reliable source in a few cases. So outright banning it is not the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WP:RS, we've got that covered already. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Such site-specific guidelines/proposals can't be of much substance. Xiner (talk, email) 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WP:RS per Mailer diablo. If we will have a page against using MySpace as a source, then maybe we should have one for YouTube, various blogs, etc. There really isn't a need in being specific.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and NO Redirect It's a useless essay. Most of it already covered in WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS. Indeed, most of the information found on myspace is complete unverifiable, but in some cases, myspace can be useful. RiseRobotRise 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment and weak keep: In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the editors of the essay, namely because the original version was, well, to put it charitably, not a good essay.  I think that with some further cleanup a specific essay about why certain kinds of sources are not considered valid might be in itself a good essay to have.  As to NOR, by definition any source not published by the editor isn't their original research, it's the verifibility problems that forums and myspace fall afoul of.  That said there are also circumstances where myspace might be a perfectly valid source, which should be carefully considered.  I disagree with a blanket prohibition, but I think some essay of this type should exist if only to give further guidance and explanation to users. Wintermut3 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Superseded by general guidelines on social sites/blogs. --Gwern (contribs) 21:07 18 January 2007 (GMT)
 * Weak Redirect. The guideline is correct. However, it is nothing that isn't described at WP:RS. I wouldn't be too distraught to see it deleted though, it's not that important. Cream147 23:39, 20 January 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.