Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 17, 2012

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was  Speedy Keep, this is the wrong forum to appeal against TFA selections or try to reform the TFA process. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   12:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Today's featured article/December 17, 2012


Well, I think there ought to be a little more discussion, and a more fully populated discussion. about putting Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo on the main page on December 17th, and I suppose this is the proper venue.

The background is that this was listed at Today's featured article/requests. The link containing the discussion as it was after its final edit is here. Now, I infer that these discussions are mostly populated by "Today's featured article" regulars, and we all know that the folks at "Today's featured article" like to get a little ah frisky sometimes, so some overview by the larger community might be in order sometimes, and this is one of those times, I guess. Some points:


 * By my count, i get 16-7 in favor of featuring the article. One of the "Support" comments is pretty squishy ("... it may be something we don't need in a year in which Wikipedia has received plenty of publicity, not all of it good") and one is by Cirt, which the reader may want to discount on general principle (or not).
 * The nominator may have been trolling, in that he describes the entity as "Heart-warming Christmas fare". If he was being sarcastic, it's not clear why he'd make the nomination. Probably he was just being light-hearted. But you can't discount the possibility of trolling, and we want to be real careful about that when it comes to the daily featured article.
 * As far as can tell, there's no closing process for these nominations. One of four editors -- Raul654, Dabomb87, Gimmetoo, or Bencherlite -- moves it into the queue at their discretion (it was Bencherlite in this case). It's not immediately clear to me what criteria are used, and what appeal process is in place.
 * FWIW this was nominated last year and, and, for whatever reason, wasn't accepted (discussion is here.)

My own take on this is that the notion that making this the main page article on December 17th would be pridemaking for the Wikipedia is not proven. I would like to see a clear demonstration, for potentially difficult articles like this, that this enhances the Wikipedia, or at least the larger community clearly thinks that it does. I haven't seen that.

Since moving this into the queue was an individual act by an individual editor, I would certainly be justified in reverting that WP:BOLD edit. I haven't done that, but the person closing this MfD might want to take into account the unusual circumstances. I think that the burden is on editors wanting to move this article onto the main page to prove their case. Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as out of process. User:Raul654 is the proper person to appeal to here, but if he declines to act, there's nothing that you can do. There was also a strong consensus for this, so this MFD is completely frivolous and sounds like "sour grapes" to me. --Rschen7754 06:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the comment about Cirt is out of line. And why are we canvassing? --Rschen7754 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per Rschen, and note that this is inherently biased. "... One is by Cirt, which the reader may want to discount on general principle (or not)." - Really? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Including the sour grapes comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that the nominator may have strong feelings about this particular article. "the subject is stupid shit for a sub-literate audience". Obviously not, if someone wrote about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close, per, above. Thank you, , much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, plus recommend the nominator apologize to User:Cirt for the Ad Hominen attack they included in their nomination text.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi)  07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep on two grounds: procedurally, this isn't the proper venue (that's be Raul, or, if you're really looking to raise a fuss, the Village Pump, I suppose); and the nominator hasn't cited any policy to support deletion (nor can I see any obvious one that could be cited). — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 08:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as formally correct, also following consensus, - but "some overview by the larger community might be in order" all the time on the TFA requests, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * adding: needless to say that the article will stay anyway, the only question is with which content, so this the wrong venue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2012 (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.