Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowban

Shadowban

A neologism that has arisen out of bans imposed on Fark.com users who have then migrated to a spin off site to vent their frustration Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides factual, verifiable evidence of activities on Fark.com and should not be considered for deletion. Marking this article for deletion should be considered vandalism and is being reported as such.Faethe 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The practice may be in place elsewhere; it's very difficult to detect without going out of your way to do so. More examples of other websites that employ the method should of course be encouraged when discovered. Removing the article just looks like another attempt to keep the subject hidden, particularly when submitted by someone who also decided to gut the Fark article of long-standing, useful, and directly user-verifiable information rather than allow any reference to a particular competing website to stand. Atario 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but it appears the removals from Fark were for the same reason this is being nominated for deletion - namely, verifiability concerns. And your link doesn't work. --Haemo 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Link now fixed. Atario 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any reliable sources for this; so, delete unless properly sourced. The standard of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. In addition, nominating an article for deletion is not vandalism. --Haemo 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the idea that nothing should be on Wikipedia unless and until an exposé has been written about it in Time magazine? You'll have to delete half the content of the place if that's anywhere near the intent... Atario 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - it only has to be covered by reliable sources. Content which is not attributable to such sources should be deleted, per guidelines. --Haemo 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks Steven is also a moderator on Fark.com. A little disingenuous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarrant84 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not. Used to be a top 40 submitter, ~170 links or so, but that's long since been superseded, and I rarely visit nowadays. I'm just interested in seeing material added here be notable and verifiable. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet you didn't see fit to gut the Filters section of the Fark article till a certain filter was mentioned. Interesting. Atario 06:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If user submitted material, screenshots and testimonials are not sufficient evidence for a wikipedia entry, then most of what is contained in the original fark.com article should be deleted. In addition I would like to state that this article has been the subject of repeated vandalism. If some of the links are missing, it is because they were deleted and the original poster has not been contacted. Shadowbanning very well could be a practice going on in other communities as I find it hard to believe this is original. This article helps to promote knowledge of this practice so users of other large sites may have some frame of reference if the same thing is done to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faethe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which !vote do you wish to strike? This one or the one above? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP. Non-notable, not reliably sourced, and a neologism to boot. The only saving grace to this article is that someone will probably submit a FARK headline about its deletion. -- Kesh 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They wouldn't dare, if they wished to stay on Fark — they would be immediately met with action against them: probably a shadowban. Atario 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above and nom. A little context for those uninvolved with the issue: Fark.com redesigned their website in late April of this year without consulting with their userbase or even prior announcement, which was a bit unusual. There was some uproar among its users, many claimed they had canceled their paid subscriptions and some users started a spin-off site. Almost since back then, members of that site have tried to get that site's domainname into the main Fark article which has lead to an extended edit war (please check the article's history), full page protection, semi-protection less than 24 hours after it was unprotected and an extended discussion on the Fark.com talk page. Yesterday, there was even a thread on their site specifically announcing that the article was good to be edited by unregistered users again.

This article is another, albeit somewhat clever, attempt at getting the domain name into the article. I strongly assume that this not so much out of a genuine desire to write an article about 'Shadowbanning' but the result of the realization that adding the domainname to the article by itself, as part of major sites like reddit and digg, as part of that article's 'Filters' section (all of which can be easily verified by checking the history) and now as a separate 'criticism' section will quickly result in a revert.
Fact is, It's still a non-notable website and the article still lacks reliable sources for a very simple reason: there are none. The screen shots are WP:OR and this has been explained in detail by multiple users, myself included, again and again. (FD: I wasn't involved in the edit war in any way, shape or form but I am keeping an eye on the article since I requested its unprotection after about a month of full protection.) This attempt at self-promotion has taken up way too much time already that could have been spent doing something productive. Hence, my !vote. -- Seed 2.0 06:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]