Talk:Bristol Indymedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

why the hell would you delete this article?? Genjix (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to improve the article and also properly cited some sections. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has consensus been established for merging

• Disagree. The editor above, having been unsuccessful in a deletion debate closed today is attempting to delete the article by other means. I note also that the corresponding merge into banner has not been placed on the
  Independent Media Center article as is required for merge proposals. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oops! Thanks for the heads up on the banner. It's been added over there, too.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 00:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That simply restates what I said. It is not the damning closing argument you seem to think. Yes, after you succesfully

WP:LAW } 00:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't believe that this article should be merged. The wide coverage in a variety of newspapers indicates sufficient notability and sufficient material for a proper article. Shell ^babelfish 02:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite specific examples of "coverage in a variety of newspapers" satisfying

WP:LAW } 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm - looks like those articles are only in connection with the seizure. Some of the other references given as mainstream media sources were actually reprints of articles by Indymedia which was a little misleading. I stand corrected - seems reasonable to merge anything on the seizure into the main article but little else that is verifiable by a secondary source currently exists in the article Shell babelfish 04:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. You have done exactly what other editors should have done: instead of being impressed by the smokescreen created by Jez, to create a superficial aura of notability, you took the time to actually check the sources and realize how farcially thin the claims for notability are. Would that more editors be more like you, Shell.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Typically the most direct means of initiating a merge proposal is the use of the {{

The merge was proposed using those templates. I'm not sure what the utility is of RFC over 3O? - Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute mandates a brief neutral description and says "Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place." An appropriate listing would read like this:

# Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merge into Indymedia. Disagreement about whether or not the Bristol Indymedia article should be merged with the main Indymedia article. [timestamp]

Here's your 3O request (diff):

# Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merge into Indymedia.

stonewalled. [1] Several editors participating in the AFD proposed that instead of deletion, whatever could be salvaged be merged into Indymedia

. I have proposed just that at the talk page, and although it's my view that we already have sufficient consensus for the merge, I'd like to get some third, fourth, etc. opinions before proceding, please. 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You asserted that you want more opinions. That's what RFCs are for. If you think a 3O would be sufficient, you can relist it with a brief neutral description. — Athaenara ✉ 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shrug* I listed it at RFC too. - Simon Dodd {
  WP:LAW } 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As you did not complete the procedure properly, I have done it for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with merger All those newspapers sources look like passing mentions. Merge the server seizure thing, which is actually notable, into Indymedia as proposed. Belonging to Indymedia is what gives notability to all these local chapters. (I spotted this merger discussion at the content noticeboard, where, now that I re-read it after writing my comment, people are saying to merge it already) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger completed

The above merger was proposed three weeks ago. That is ample time for anyone who wanted to object to do so; only one voice has been raised in opposition,

One proposal of merger does not constitute consensus either. Your merger has been reverted. And your RfC is still open. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The merger was proposed, three weeks is more than enough time for anyone to register objections, and so the consensus of AFD contributors plus myself, plus the silence of the community other than yourself (see

WP:LAW } 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've got a bit of experience determining consensus and I'd have to say there isn't one here yet. Sometimes it doesn't happen as fast as we'd like - things can languish for months on less popular articles - has anyone tried a neutrally worded note at wikiprojects that might have an interest in the article? Shell ^babelfish 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has objected except Jez! If three weeks isn't sufficient time for the community to speak through silence, why does AFD typically wait only seven days? - Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually I've just objected too but yes, it can be frustrating to get so little input into a proposal like this. AfDs do run 7 days but are often relisted if not enough people respond - sometimes it takes a little legwork to get other folks interested in opining on a particular question. If there's an RfC open and you're not getting much response, you might consider if the RfC could be reworded or if a requested move/merge discussion might generate more interest. I think I also mentioned wikiprojects as another possibility for additional input. Shell babelfish 03:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted re the RfC (which had not been properly nominated at

WP:RfC on the relevant projects of Bristol Indymedia nd Independent Media Centre and also those editors who took part in the AfD discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Erm - are you sure you wanted to post the RfC in the Wikipedia policy category? I would have thought maybe "Economy, trade, and companies" or "Art, architecture, literature and media" Shell ^babelfish 09:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there needs to be a statement of the dispute beneath the tag or its not going to pick things up properly. Shell ^babelfish 09:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope that I have got it right now. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the CN thread was archived here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

It doesn't make much sense to have an RfC only on the technical point of whether consensus has been established already. We need a solution, not a perpetuation of the problem. Therefore it's actually more important to discuss here whether to merge the article, and to establish a clear consensus one way or the other.

On the technical point: I believe that Simon Dodd was right – there was a consensus to merge. I am not entirely sure this is still the case, since now Neutralhomer has joined Jezhotwells in opposing it, apparently [2] [3] under the impression that the present article has an appropriate level of detail backed up by reliable sources. The reality is different. Here is a breakdown of the article's content:

• About BIMC: One paragraph consisting of a literal quotation of a BIMC mission statement, and something said by a BIMC contributor in a now deleted interview with a computer website about alternative news in general. One paragraph made up almost entirely of quotations from BIMC contributors sourced to BIMC pages. The one exception is a concrete illustration of how Indymedia works in general, sourced to a now deleted article by a Bristol songwriter about social trends in Bristol.
• A History of BIMC and Related Events: A short paragraph on BIMC's creation (sourced to BIMC). A second paragraph about BIMC and the Iraq war (generic information applying equally to other IMC projects), sourced to an IMC-like Christian project. A third paragraph about a police investigation (sourced to the local newspaper), two BIMC PR events (sourced to a participating organisation and BIMC itself), and another BIMC-organised event (sourced to the local newspaper).
• Server Seizure: Two paragraphs on a notable event. Excellent sources present, although 3/4 of the details are sourced to BIMC.
• Bristol Indymedia Ongoing: Two excessively detailed paragraphs (some sourced to BIMC, some unsourced). A third excessively detailed paragraph about a site relaunch (sourced to BIMC and what seems to press release type coverage in the local newspaper and on the local BBC site).
• Media comment: A short paragraph listing extremely trivial mentions by 3 reliable sources. A paragraph with a "graphic example of how journalists and bloggers read other blogs for story ideas" (sourced to a local PR company's blog). Two instances of reliable sources using BIMC as a source. A paragraph quoting the two-sentence mention by a local student guide in full, and giving an example of a reliable source using BIMC as a source twice.
• Other Indymedia Centres: The one sentence here that arguably relates to BIMC is sourced to a now deleted interview of a computer website with a BIMC contributor.

The obvious reason why all this cruft is still in the article is that it's easier to get rid of it by merging it than to engage in foreseeable attrition warfare with Jezhotwells about individual paragraphs.

This article is like an article about a McDonald's restaurant. Two years ago someone was shot in it, so it was mentioned in the press and even on TV. And that's used as an excuse to keep an article which then fills space by quoting generic statements such as "Our kids just love to come here, so it's well worth the drive from Barrington to Footown." Hans Adler 11:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of fact:

Future Publishing in the UK, not a computer website. The article was archived as is frequently the case with print media sources. The "songwriter" you refer to is Eugene Byrne, a local journalist, who was commissioned to write articles for the Brunel 200 celebrations by the Bristol Cultural Development Partnership. I have a hard copy of the print leaflet that contained this. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

When looking at the sources, I also noticed that sources that are considered influent in the tech world (The Register) only mentions the website when the server seizure happened, and that it makes so much incidence in being an Indymedia server, and Bristol's website being part of Indymedia. BBC Bristol, wich would be the following source in quality, has four mentions. One is for the server seizure [4], one is a passing mention while covering other local magazine[5] one is a short article on a section called "city life"[6], and one is simply an entry on "our list of external web links of interest to people in and around Bristol"[7]. And, of course, we are talking about the local part of BBC, not the national one. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to merge, and that still remains the best option. As usual, better to have one strong article. Though I !voted keep at the AfD, I said the sources seemed barely sufficient to show notability of the Bristol centre. There's a lot of duplication between the two articles. There's a good deal of excessive detail also in both, to the extent that I well understand why people might have wanted to delete this article. The details of what happened with the FBI , & the UK police, are not really encyclopedic content. No matter how highly one thinks of their activities, some of this belongs on their own website. Some friendly but extensive copyediting for conciseness is needed on both articles. DGG (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the problem has become more acute, because Jez keeps blowing air into the article, adding more fluff and fondant in (so far as I can tell) a desperate bid to create a veneer of notability by sheer volume of material. But as soon as one takes the time to look at those references, as Shell did above, one realizes just how gossamer the illusion of notability really is. Hans' McDonalds analogy above is perfect. We have a barely-notable event as an anchor (one that is already given appropriate coverage in the indymedia article) straining to hold this immense Flying Dutchman of fancruft that Jez has tethered to it.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

30 days have passed - no one else has posted here. User:Simon Dodd keeps claiming that the result of the most recent Afd was merge. No it wasn't - it was no consensus. Anyone can see that by reading the discussion linked above. Likewise there is no consensus here. Banners removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous.

For the merger

Simon Dodd, Shell (was initially against, but then looked closer), Enric Naval, Hans Adler, DGG.

Against the merger

Jezhotwells.

I see a very clear pattern here. I guess you are the only one who doesn't see it. Hans Adler 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it is a strawman - let's call a spade a spade, it's a lie - to say that I "keep[] claiming that the result of the most recent Afd was merge" - I have never said that, and have repeatedly rejected it (see the CNB thread linked below, for example).- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nevertheless, Jez filed an RFC on the proposed merger, and at the suggestion of user:Enric_Naval at the afore-linked CNB thread, I agreed to wait out the RFC's run.

Ask not for which article the bell tolls. Every single user who has commented here since the last merger attempt has supported merging the articles. Jez continues to be the lone holdout. There was consensus to merge then; there must, a fortiori, be an even stronger consensus to merge now. The merger will accordingly proceed forthwith.- Simon Dodd {

I guess it's far easier for people to destroy rather than create content. Hope you feel proud of your contributions to this knowledge resource Wikipedia. Genjix (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this battle was lost some time ago and the article was merged following Wikipedia procedures. I received no support when contesting the merger. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]