Consumerium:Proposed deletions

Place proposed deletions on this page with a rationale. They will stand for at least a week before any action is taken. Elaborate arguments under each page name in point form; Try to stick to TIPAESA form or a subset of it.

Proposed deletions

September 8

Proposals for deletion made September 8, for action September 15:

Alleged Wikimedia corruption, recommandation.

Not deleted

September 8

article hub - meaningless name: everything is an article and any article can be a hub to reach others; move the content to various other articles on the specific topics, as part of streamlining of Consumerium Process pages, and attempt to outline what a Consumerium Research pilot and working Research Wiki would look like

Counter: Untill someone comes up with a more rational structure for navigating these deep swamps of this development wiki this will stay as it offers quick jump points to some of the most essential articles to understand what consumerium is about. --Juxo 18:38, 30 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Executed deletions

See Consumerium:Deletion log for a full listing of deletions (incl. those that were deleted unilaterally without going through this page)

September 8

Gus Kouwenhoven, unaccountably deleted, apparently a personal friend of someone who thinks sysop vandalism is appropriate and warranted to protect the reputation of this most excellent person Mr Kouwenhoven who has so many rights that he can pretty much wipe out a whole continent before anyone at Consumerium would ever notice

.:Deleted per standard rules that are in place to help us focus on developing some kind of information gathering and publishing system without getting dragged in accountability issues here and now so we can focus on how we deal with these when they arise in the production stage. --Juxo 16:30, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Fox News point of view, unaccountably deleted, apparently by someone who thinks that it isn't important or biasing that Wikimedia and Bomis are often accused of this view, e.g. by English Wikipedia User Richardchilton, or that it's a major focus of debate about media in the USA.

Same as above. See Rules

September 30

troll droppings - redirect used exactly once seemingly only to degrade troll text; unwisely applying an overly organic conceptual metaphor; one ought not to confuse mythological creatures that have no body with real living creatures that do, and which leave droppings; presumably it is only one's non-troll body that can leave any fertilizer around

Craig Hubley - article was deemed too inaccurate for Wikipedia and is probably not relevant to wiki mission; also there is apparently some kind of policy against pages "about person X" though some have advocated that there be exceptions for people relevant to specific worst cases and threats. Unless this person represents such a worst case or threat, which would have to be proven by documenting a case study or design fiction that made some reference to him, that was more credible with him in the story than with anyone else, his name is irrelevant to the wiki and should be deleted. If important it can re-emerge in the Research Wiki.

Talk:Craig Hubley might stand however as it has some useful accusations and comment in it. If we consider suing for funding to be useful that is.

Ending Wikimedia - not a Consumerium related matter. We aren't in the business of scrutinizing non-profit organisations. We are leaving it up to each consumer to decide what organisations to trust and what not. See Preferences on this --Juxo 14:23, 8 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Counter-argument: unless we end Wikimedia, it will remain a platform for various attacks on Consumerium. The people who *promote* corporate power at Wikipedia are exactly the people who will become funded trolls that will fill Research Wiki with pro-corporate propaganda or censor the truth about corporate activities. Wikimedia is like the Al Qaeda of journalism: it trains people to engage in mindless attacks with no potential for any dialogue.

Suing for funding - this is total bullshit and is degrading to think that anyone serious about our goals would suggest such. anyways, these types of thing are not for the anonymous contributors who revel in being trolls. --Juxo 18:38, 30 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Your reasoning is flawed: MANY nonprofits are funded from the proceeds of lawsuits against unethical journalists. MANY. Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley are only one good example.

Many may be but on the other hand you can quote the Grant&Hurley case as an example of this because it was them who donated the money to the non-profit not that the non-profit would have sued someone. Keep your facts and your fiction apart --Juxo 16:30, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

This was just a stupid article that is in no way in accordance with Our Philosophy but rather quite the opposite --Juxo 18:38, 30 Sep 2004 (EEST)