Old Man Murray Wikipedia Controversy Continues 173
An anonymous reader writes "As discussed previously on slashdot, the Old Man Murray article was deleted from Wikipedia. After much controversy, the article has been restored. However, the debate to delete the article continues, with both deletionists and Old Man Murray fans swarming to the article."
Uh, debate is where? (Score:5, Informative)
Where does the debate continue? There was no link in the summary pointing to any ongoing debate. Just the previous Slashdot story and the main wikipedia article. There have been no edits to the OMM talk page for a week.
Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy submission.
Maybe they're referring to the SignPost article that has a handful of comments from a few days ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-07/Deletion_controversy [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Informative)
The theoretical reason for deleting articles is that if they're not notable, there's likely to be inaccuracies due to nobody looking at the page on a regular basis. And even if it was accurate when it went up things change.
The main problem is that nobody can really decide what is and isn't notable, and it frequently comes down to politics. However now that there's been this scandal, Old Man Murray should be considered notable. If for no other reason than demonstrating Wikipedia editorial douche baggery.
Re:So?? (Score:2, Informative)
It was their objective for many years, and you can still see mention of this objective in places on Wikipedia. Like in Jimbo's annual letter calling for donations, for example.