Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery

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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the first time this year, the Signpost has a "Gallery" section. It is created by Gamaliel, titled "A history lesson", and features political cartoons, two of older political events, and then 5 about US (vice-)presidents, often related to elections. What this gallery has to do with the Signpost is anybody's guess. That it looks like a rather pathetic attempt to compare the Signpost and its April 1 Trump edition with historical newspaper cartoons is obvious though. Gamaliel is already subject of an ArbCom case request (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case) for actions around the April 1 Signpost, and now using the Signpost as his personal playground to provide commentary (or even a "lesson") on this ongoing case is an abuse of his position as editor-in-chief.

Earlier galleries (none in 2016, but a few in 2015) nearly always focused on Wikimedia events, or had a clear tie-in to some recent event obvious for all readers (or at least explained, as in the moon landings gallery of mid 2015). This one? Nothing, no interest for anyone not aware of why Gamaliel assembled and posted this.

This is not what the Signpost is intended for.

• Delete - I honestly thought the same thing when seeing the gallery. Doesn't come off as professional to me. GamerPro64 14:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Does this article violate any policies? I don't think so, so deletion would be straight out censorship of the Signpost. Use this "evidence" at ARBCOM, or write letters to the editor, but deleting this would set a very bad precedent. Also, everyone involved in this #smallhandsghazi bullshit needs to realize how stupid the whole thing is, including Gamaliel.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fram is just attacking Gamaliel after GG. It just hurts that there's only one really uninvolved admin in all of this and the signpost is better off with more blistering commentary on American politics. It's time for a truly neutral view that the entire GOP is right wing lunacy versus the merely right wing Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.0 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2016

• Speedy keep - Whether or not you consider this a "rather pathetic attempt to compare the Signpost and its April 1 Trump edition with historical newspaper cartoons" deletion policy and practice has been very much hands-off when it comes to The Signpost. Would this be the first time any page has been deleted from the Signpost? I'd guess a Signpost page has never even been listed before. With very, very few exceptions (e.g. a gross BLP violation), the Signpost content should be a matter for the editorial staff. With the smallest encouragement I'll remove the deletion notice from that page. It is just *not* the job of folks outside the editorial staff to edit the Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any policy-based reason why the Signpost would be exempt from MfD? We are not allowed, apparently, to edit the page, and we are not allowed to nominate it for deletion? Then perhaps the Signpost should be moved off Wikipedia and find another home. And if you want preceence for a (life!)Signpost page being up for MfD;
    Fram (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Feel free to use the comments section. Frankly I don't know if it is written anywhere in policy, and don't care. The Signpost is a special project on Wikipedia, an *independent newspaper* that follows the rules of *independent* journalism. If there is no assertion within a reasonable time that this violates some Wikipedia policy, I'll close this as keep even though I am not an admin and have expressed an opinion here. Censorship is against longstanding Wikipedia policy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: This is a sad attempt to intimidate both Gamaliel and the Signpost, by an editor who has a personal axe to grind, and who we can be assured does not determine "what the Signpost is intended for". The Signpost has a history of covering images that we should be proud to have at Commons and other WMF sites, with reader interest the driver. Perhaps someone would like to nominate all of the archived Galleries? You could include those that have nothing ostensibly to do with Wikipedia, such as Darwin Day, Apollo 11, and love. Tony (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Frivolous and retaliatory. No rationale or policy violation has been offered, only personal speculation about the motives of another editor. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Gamaliel. I'm hardly his biggest fan but this is ridiculous. He's the editor, it's his call. Auerbachkeller (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]