Talk:Project Chanology

Neutrality?

I took out the part in the intro that says "internet trolls", because that's a bit biased. ~Duct_Tape_Tricorn, 25 Jan 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duct tape tricorn (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and I think that "pranksters" is still a bit of a loaded word, or is at least used in a biased context here. A rewording of the entire article may be in order.

4chan /b/

This whole effort is on the part of 4chan /b/, and is not notable (unless there are going to be articles about the Habbo raids next.) not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGoals (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reported on by the mainstream media, which makes it notable enough. --clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may become one of the most important things to happen on the internet

This may become one of the most important things to happen on the internet. I wouldn't be so quick to delete it.

This is an on-going event and is expanding rapidly, it should be maintained. LamontCranston 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is getting a lot of play over at Digg and other social media sites (here here and here for some examples). One of those links to a Wired article and I'm sure we can find lots of other news articles detailing this. I certainly wouldn't "speedy" delete this. Put it up for deletion the old fashioned way. JHMM13^(Disc) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the article still doesn't assert the notability, Digg and other social media sites (i.e. any site with user-generated content) don't cut it as reliable sources. Dethme0w (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need reliable media - Australian Personal Computer magazine has picked it up. They're the largest PC print publication in Australia. Article here. Deletion is wrong at this stage. Give it a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow aus (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should add that to the external links at least. I have removed the tags, but the article needs inline references. Dethme0w (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wired magazine is covering the attacks now. [1] Does that count as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avpmechman (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Although I do think this whole thing is quite funny, 13 year old script kiddies on 4chan aren't significant enough for a Wikipedia article, especially without citations. DDoSes happen thousands of times ever day, not every one deserves an article. I've nominated for prod. Miserlou (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external links and linking to other wiki Scientology pages cover it, if you need to be redundent then add citations LamontCranston 7:45, 25 January (UTC)

The attack has been going on for the past week. They are releasing Scientology documents. There are fliers being handed out at physical locations. This isn't just 13 year old script kiddies on 4chan anymore. It's bigger now. Much bigger now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.18.186 (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this page isn't up to par, and if it doesn’t improve it probably should be deleted. That being said, here are a few observations on how this article could turn into a great article and have the notability it deserves.

1. There is more text in the references section than in the article itself (and they don't actually reference anything). Wikipedia isn't a collection of links. since all the news articles basically say the same thing (with different internet "experts" offering their advise on how to avoid such attacks) find the 2 most reliable sources (something like Wired, and then one non-internet source like the Associated Press, or New York Times) and keep those, while deleting the rest.
2. cite within the article, using more than 3 sources. show that this is a notable event by showing within the article itself all the reliable people (not blogs, self published sources, or hacker/internet mags) who are talking about the event.
3. Tie it into the bigger picture. right now it reads like a News article from the group. show how Project Chanology got its start, what inspired it and how they tie into the internet community.
4. Add a criticism section. WOW! Right now it sounds just like the Tom Cruse video did on scientology "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN!!!!" people are criticizing the attacks, notable people like XENU.ORG etc. add that stuff. talk about how it failed in parts. this is supposed to be a WP:NPOV and right now it reads like a promotion add for ANON.

if these things are done, then this could be an A class article and I don't think anyone will try to delete it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to work on the above. But it may take some time, say 24 hours max. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow! you realy got on that. I had just set up a critisism section, and then saw that you where already editing one in. Have at it!Coffeepusher (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really should not be deleted. Sorry. Hannabee (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

WP:NOTABILITY states that a topic is notable if "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This topic has been covered by publications such as Wired [2], APC Magazine [3], National Post [4] and Sky News [5]. This is clear adherence of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB, meaning that the article can be kept. Any attempts to delete this article are likely to fail. --Teggles (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

most of those are internet publications. I will dispute the fact that they are independent of the subject. This "event" has recieved little to no attention from non-web baced media (that means that it is beeing covered by less than 20% of the avalible internet media).Coffeepusher (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the current sources in the article's references section. There have been TV news stories on NBC and Sky News, among others. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap Lois!

Wow, someone wrote an article on Project Chanology in Suomi! That was fast. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see it myself. I skimmed over the article and it does look quite good - from a brief reading.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite likely that this may be put to AfD at some point, and it'll be a controversial AfD if that happens.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I meant I was surprised to see THIS as a stand-alone article, let alone a Suomi version.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that does not happen, for I am in the process of expanding it from sources... Cirt (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check sources before removing

Many/most of them mention both the Cruise video and Chanology. And the press release is a valid source. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to cut down on the links. we currently have 14 sources, and are only using 5 of them. I did mistakenly delete the second tom cruse one, becasue I didn't read to the bottom to see the tie in, but the press relece said the same stuff and all theother sourcesCoffeepusher (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm incorporating stuff, just give me a bit of time and things will be worked in, but especially please don't remove sources if they are cited in the Notes section. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]