Public domain status is unclear as it was seemingly produced by Sony and not fed govt but I don't see a problem with using at least a scaled down version of the doc with a claim of fair use. Assuming there is no free version available, it could be theoretically used that way. 189.25.205.82 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question, in which article do you propose to use this document, and how is it essential to understanding that topic? I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario in my mind for how a DJVU document could meet our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse, having looked at the document it's quite clearly that portions of it are not PD, and I don't see how it would meet the NFCC for that particular article. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
endorse if this is a scan of a legal document. it's either going to be readable or unreadable, if it's readable then the 'low-quality' is irrelevant, we are using it for it's original 'market' purpose nfcc#2 and just acting as a file hosting service, if it's unreadable then it's pretty hard to see how it could improve a readers understanding of the matter at hand nfcc#8. from what i can see the document was being used as a reference, we don't need to host a copy of the file to reference the document, so i cannot see the point in this. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i've updated the article to link to the complaint as hosted by the eff. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Beta Uprising – Relisted. Consensus is that this should undergo a full deletion discussion, also because a potentially relevant source has since been published. – Sandstein 10:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closed as speedy delete on the day of nomination, when multiple people said to keep it, and the closing admin did not provide the speedy deletion criteria she deleted it under, only saying "speedy", completely bypassing consensus. Please revert this bizarre close. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 20:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the closing admin gave these criteria on the talk page:
Wnt, Chess, Gandydancer and Darth Viller, as you know, it's a question of sourcing. With something like this the first version needs to have solid secondary sourcing so that Wikipedia isn't leading with it. Darth, I saw no scholars using the term. The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on, though you could perhaps add the phrase to another relevant article.
It indeed wasn't the main subject of the BBC News source, though it was the main focus of the article in The Frisky, and had additional mentions in other reliable media. Darth Viller (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Viller: True, but it she can't unilaterally say that it is not enough to base an article on and then delete the article. We're supposed to come to those conclusions by consensus, not one admin deciding whatever she says is law. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt and Gandydancer: Thought you'd like to know of this. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put some other mentions at the AfD discussion. The page was deleted at 20:00 UTC today, when the AfD looked like this. --Rubbishcomputer 21:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)::I thought @EamonnPKeane: might also like to be pinged, and I will tell the IP in case they also have anything to add. --Rubbishcomputer 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article began: "Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by 'socially awkward' males against 'alpha males' and women." It contained a section on the Umpqua Community College shooting.
I speedy deleted it because notability had not been established, and when I checked it on Google it was obvious that notability could not be established. The sources I found were primary sources, with a passing mention of the phrase by the BBC [1] and two other outlets. Yet the Wikipedia article – which contained unsourced passages and SYN violations – had already been picked up by Google. There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase. I hope it is obvious why we ought not to do that given the circumstances.
I've offered to email a copy to its creator, if he doesn't already have one, so that he can create Draft:Beta Uprising. That way, other editors can be involved in the search for secondary sourcing and the decision to publish. Sarah(talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: in case it matters, I had decided this was a candidate for speedy deletion before the article was nominated for AfD (as I recall); I was looking for secondary sources when I saw it had been nominated. Speed was important because of the nature of the claim and its timing in relation to the Umpqua Community College shooting.
I deleted it under WP:A7: web content with no credible claim of significance. Web content is: "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet," according to Wikipedia:Notability (web). The phrase beta uprising has appeared on 4chan and Reddit. It isn't clear whether it's intended as a serious claim or a joke. There are no secondary sources discussing it; only three mention it in passing. The article was fluffed out with a section on the shooting, unsourced material and SYN violations. (I assume good faith of the creator; this seems to have been a question of being unfamiliar with the sourcing policies.)
Wikipedia:Notability (web): "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content." Sarah(talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Do you mind trying to keep a consistent deletion rationale? At first you said [2] that it was deleted because "We would need secondary sources to show that Wikipedia was following the sources and not leading", which doesn't seem to be based in CSD policy. You then proceeded to say [3] that it needs to be deleted because "This was an admin action based on my view that we were about to cause this idea to spread, rather than simply reporting it", which is also not at all rooted in policy whatsoever. You also said before, [4] something which added on to your deletion rationale by saying "The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on...". You essentially said that the article either did not pass WP:GNG, or WP:VERIFIABILITY, both of which should be decided in an WP:AFDdiscussion, not a unilateral decision by one person. You've now proceeded to state in [5] that the article was deleted "because notability had not been established", which also is not rooted in policy, and appears to be a misreading of A7, which states that certain types of articles needs to have a claim to notability in them. This article did not fall under one of the certain types of articles listed in A7, and did make a claim to notability. You also said "There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase." You're now stating that we need to suppress information because you don't want people knowing about it. You're essentially saying (and doing) censor Wikipedia. You really need to restore the article, and re-open the deletion discussion, because it is obvious you are very confused about how the WP:AFD process works. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I readily admit I am not familiar with how wikipedia works in terms of getting things removed, but I just don't understand how this could possible be an article. I stated something similar on the talk page before it was deleted, but the entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on r9k, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on r9k, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real.
Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. People have a view point of why these shootings are happening, and with a lack of concrete evidence, turn to using a phrase said in jest as evidence. There is even a fair chance that the entire reason that this is being talked about, the perpetrator of the shooting in Oregon, never even used the term in his life, or knew what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I realized that this article might have a tough time at AfD - there are sources about it, but they are not exclusively about it. However, the deletion log message cites A7 "no indication of importance", which is clearly wrong, and "WP:SNOW", which is clearly contrary to fact when 2/0 voted Keep. Moreover, deleting admin's comment " It's important, for obvious reasons, to make sure Wikipedia isn't responsible for spreading that idea." is clearly an indication of personal bias rather than a reason for deletion, and contrary to WP:CENSOR. In short, there is no policy reason for deletion. "It is inappropriate to re-argue the AfD here" - people love to say that on DRV when an AfD finds for deletion, so I think I'll say it this time. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, what exactly is the "indication of importance" that was clearly present in the article? I can't see the original, but from what's posted here, the only alleged indication is that it's a neologism used on two websites. That's not exactly an "indication of importance" (or, if that really is an indication of importance, then AFD could be turned into an CSD-proof article with the lead sentence, "an initialism used on one of the world's most popular websites to mean that your article is probably going to get deleted"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & reply I read the article before it was deleted. The article seemed problematic. The lead opened with something ominous sounding and something not true to the limited sourcing. I can't remember word for word, but it originally opened with something like: "The Beta Uprising is the name given to the upcoming violent revolution..." It went on to suggest "alpha men" and women would soon be violently targeted by "uprising" "beta men". The lead made it sound like BBC saw this as legitimate and impending revolution. Before it was deleted, I rewrote the lead to match the very limited sourcing which briefly discussed "beta uprising" as a phrase used online by people source called "socially awkward". My rewrite of lead was as follows: Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by "socially awkward" males against "alpha males" and women. The violence or support of violence carried out by others is said to be a response to lack of intimacy, romantic success and sexual gratification.[1][2][3] The phrase "beta uprising" has been used by media organizations like BBC News in the aftermath of the Umpqua Community College shooting.[1]
The article didn't appear to meet notability guidelines. The phrase "beta uprising" was only mentioned in passing in the BBC piece as phrase used on 4chan. If additional sourcing is located, I do support Sarah's suggestion on her talk page that this article be created in draft format first, preferably with input of multiple wikiprojects and experienced editors so Wikipedia isn't misused as a tool to promote this as a thing by the guys involved in online chatter about this, which seemed to potentially be occurring. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't at any one time a statement of an upcoming revolution, it was "expected" in the sense some group may have eschatological expectations - though some stuff did get vandalised away all the time, so the qualifying statement wasn't always there. The immediate use of "alpha" and "beta" was also a later edit. The article did lack a clarification that the phrase also gets used a lot for teh lulz, but that was absent in the sources, too, except for some quotes from Reddit in a pair. Darth Viller (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think it was "expected revolution" not "impeding revolution", but it struck me as problematic because it didn't seem to accurately reflect the limited sourcing. The article actually seemed problematic to me on many levels. It seemed to portray "socially awkward" "beta guys" as a group of unstable spree killers the likes of which include Christopher Harper-Mercer and Elliot Rodgers etc...like there is some organized and evil group of shy "nice guys" that are out there plotting to take down humanity via violent revolution. I do tend to agree that "beta uprising" is a somewhat notable phrase on 4chan and has some minimal reliable sourcing, so maybe deserves brief mention in some related article, but it seems to devote an entire article to this we should have some serious scholarly sourcing (or at least the kind of sources that investigates how much of this is Internet trolls trying to be funny) . Seems that perhaps WP shouldn't make socially awkward guys seem evil and crazy, even if a small number of sensational reliable sources sort of do. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: A7 mentions that only articles falling under the topics of "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" can be nominated for A7. As mentioned in WP:WEB, "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals." An internet "meme" does not fall under "web content". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says that web content "includes, but is not limited to" a variety of things. It does not say that a phrase on some website is not included, even if we say that it's a meme. I am therefore dubious of your assertion that it doesn't qualify for A7. The very next sentence in WP:WEB says, "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline", which appears to describe "a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" quite nicely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: The "Beta Uprising" might (hypothetically) be an organized event, so I would prefer to focus on demonstrating what the importance is. A number of news media publicized that Edinburgh University had been threatened by a copycat killing after Umpqua, and said that the UK police were investigating, a comment about the "beta uprising", which they proceeded to define. [6] Just before that, posters citing "Beta Uprising" are alleged to have cheered on the Umpqua killer's rampage [7] (The FBI is said to be investigating 4chan right now, and there is a chance we could see quite a reprehensible purge indeed before this is over) Many of these quoted the "beta uprising" specifically - do read the archived thread here, which is quite entertaining. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These links do not demonstrate any importance to me; based on this, at most, I would give this phrase one short paragraph in the article about actual events. If the article did no better at conveying importance than the links, then I think that A7 is not an unreasonable interpretation. I would therefore endorse deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The beta uprising is a sort of "idea", like Helter Skelter as preached by Charles Manson. Just because it is on the internet didn't make it "web content". It is wholly divorceable from the internet, unlike things like an advice animal meme, which are intertwined with an internet culture. The beta uprising is not internet culture, it is more of the culture of mentally ill people who can't get laid. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. For now, this is best covered in the article on the shooting itself. AndreasJN466 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we at least give User:SlimVirgin a rebuke for this obviously out of turn deletion? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a lot of this in a different thread, but it is relevant to this discussion.
Endorse deletion The entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on /r9k/, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on /r9k/, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. The entire premise of the article is predicated on the fact that there is a movement afoot for some sort of social revolution, using the actions of one person and their supposed postings as evidence, when it is entirely possible, and in fact becoming more probable that they never posted the statement in question and did not hold those views, how can you have that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Forget him, there is no other instance that can even be brought up as an example of this supposed wide-spread simmering movement in action. It's just conjuncture based off of mis-information from bad reporting in the moments after a tragedy.
Most media articles are taking the issue super seriously, and writing a wikipedia article at this time lends that viewpoint credence, because, let's face it, there are a significant number of people who will google the term, end up here, and think it's a real movement. So, even if, a week or two down the line, it becomes clear that the killer did not hold the views in question at all, and that any post related to the matter on places like /r9k/ or reddit are satire, there wont be new media articles saying we were wrong, it was all just some inside-joke, none of these events are related. We will have a wikipedia article that will have been viewed however by many people, perhaps even media personal themselves looking up information to write further articles, that presents the this movement as something taken seriously by people, and that is causing actual harm to other people.
SOFIXIT. Give sources to show it's a joke. I gave sources above to show the American and British authorities were investigating it, and they're traditionally not very funny. You correct the misinformation by providing sourced data for an article that corrects misinformation, rather than having Wikipedia not do its job. Wnt (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? How? Would more 4chan screencaps about how it's all just trolling count as a source? Because that's what every one of these articles have been using, literally one screengrab from 4chan, and then some other posts people made afterwards, as sources for this "movement". If all it takes to establish authority as a source is to publish s screenshot in a "reputed" news source along with some commentary, I think you should be able to accept the screenshots I provide, along with any commentary I give. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me, but here we are debating sources that did exactly that. As for authorities investigating, of course they are. That's there job, to investigate any leads. They have to do so. But notice how they haven't said that he did in fact post the post in question, or give any indications of a viewpoint that was similar? They just said they were investigating, and that's it. I would wager that we never hear of it again as the weeks go by, since it turned out there was no relation. Unless of course we make a wikipedia article about it, and make sure to popularize this theory. This is all just my opinion, I have no knowledge of the workings of wikipedia on how articles get vetted, but this case just seems pretty cut and dry not a real thing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout This looks like an obvious supervote. I can see no justification for invoking WP:CSD here. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore There was some original info on the first version of the page, but it can be rewritten with sources following investigation into the shooter's motives --The war on shrugs (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is no "beta uprising". It was a non-notable meme picked up by confused writers and mentioned in passing. SV was correct in preventing Wikipedia from being used to spread memes without good sources. I suggest everyone who wants to keep this non-topic have a look at WP:NOT as the delete was appropriate per that policy. We are not a rumor mill. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: So do you think any admin should be allowed to delete any article they want to based on their interpretation of the notability guideline? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chess, the article was deleted appropriately per A7. There is no "beta uprising". It is a non-notable troll routine. There is nothing to relist or discuss. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. You and I both know this wasn't deleted appropriately per A7. That A7 doesn't apply to the topic (not a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event!) is a black and white call. I don't even see how one could twist those words to get this to fit. Further "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Given the discussion here and at the AfD, this wasn't even close to obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist; as much as I agree with the sentiment, there isn't a sufficient IAR justification for this clearly out-of-process speedy deletion. CSD A7 is not valid as there are reliable sources that discuss it, even if in passing, which is good enough as an assertion of importance. Let the community decide how they want to handle this. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Temporarily restored history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I'm not sure whether or not it should be deleted, but I am sure it was not a valid speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I'm tending to agree with Viriditas. I've made a few previous comments about this to say it should be kept, however at the time I thought that it was another of the things that kids are talking about these days that I don't have a clue about. That does not seem to be the case here. When I google it, it seems to be a term being used by only a small group...but then on the first page you see Wikipedia has an article on it...meaning that we're helping to spread the term as I type, I guess. I can see where an argument could be made to remove the title for now while it is being discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Endorse- Sometimes I think we should hold off writing an article about very recent murders until the facts are clarified, and we can do a responsible job. The deleted version is full of poorly sourced speculation and coatrackery, and reads more like an editorial hit piece than an encyclopedia article. ReykYO! 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. A7clearly does not apply to memes. WP:SNOW clearly does not apply when all commenters at the AfD except the nominator have !voted to keep the article, providing at least some policy-based rationales. WP:NOT is not a criterion for speedy deletion. "IAR endorse" amounts to "we couldn't trust the community to reach the correct decision at the AfD". Should it be deleted? Probably yes, but not in this way. Process is important. Let the community endorse the deletion for good. Huon (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. A7 did not apply here and WP:SNOW did not apply here. Whether or not it was deleted should have been determined through consensus at the AfD. --Rubbishcomputer 10:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The article (undeleted permalink) clearly has no indication of importance (WP:A7) in the sense of encyclopedic knowledge. Some may view the topic as important in the sense of epic trolling, or epic lulz in its portrayal of a webforum as having significance, but there is no content other than an explanation of terms like chads and staceys, and the mention of ephemeral media attention due to an actually significant event. Encyclopedic knowledge about "beta" is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sums it up for me. AndreasJN466 12:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Andreas, Reyk, Johnuniq & my earlier comments. The article was created via OR and synth. Only three of the six sources referenced even mention the phrase "beta uprising", one only in passing. The existence of "beta uprising" as a minimally notable phrase on 4chan perhaps warrants a brief mention on the 4chan article or shooting article. I understand WP is not censored, and perhaps we could go ahead and keep this article online for a few days, until the community deleted it per GNG, but it also seems that we should probably have some sort of minimal editorial responsibility, because having this article makes it look like a thing. In most of its formats, this article suggests a "violent revolution" has begun or is expected to begin shortly, some of the versions appear to be a call to inspire others to act out violently. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't supposed to be decided based on what you think that someone might be "inspired" to do. But since most of the delete votes are on just this basis, then I will restate what I said at the AfD: this meme is actually interesting and important and can inspire people not just to commit mass slaughter, but to reevaluate and correct aspects of society that may be leading misguided people to commit such crimes. The premise is that a fundamental change in the pattern of sexual relations throughout society have consequences. More broadly (I don't know if those discussing the meme really consider it) the widening gap between rich and poor has more than economic consequences - it has social consequences when some men feel reduced to insignificance in every way, including the sexual. The flip side of the "beta uprising" meme, (indeed, the original beta uprising such as it is) is the Christian ethic of enduring one-to-one marriage, something which most people take on faith to be derived from nothing but random, irrational superstition. Now I don't know what my POV about the meme is - I just smell that it is the tip of something interesting and significant in society. Now usually, the way society responds to such phenomena is to suppress discussion, ignore them, until some day far in the future some writers for Time magazine are vapidly trying to work out how al Qaida managed to recruit hundreds of thousands of young discouraged nobodies, and conclude that it's complicated. But I would have hoped that Wikipedia would actually be not censored, and let editors have a fair shot to try to scrabble together enough sources to lay down some basic ideas for others to think about. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt I actually agree with you that the topic is interesting, but our role as WP editors isn't to spread interesting ideas in a way that reliable sources haven't or to give a topic significance in a way that reliable sources haven't done so yet. A lot of what was interesting in that article was OR and synth. I do agree this could be part of a larger and interesting topic of societal sexual norms and their effect on societal stability. This is a bit off topic, but I've read that historically, the cultures that had harems were thought to be less successful and less common than monogamous cultures, not because of women's rights or anything (because most societies rejected harems when women had basically no rights), but because if one man had 10 wives that meant 9 men had no wife at all, and societies with large numbers of young lonely, frustrated and desperate men aren't particularly stable. I also believe there has been some serious scholarly discussion along these lines with issues men face in China where, due to the practice of sex selection/aborting females, there is a large surplus of men. Despite it's potential to fit into a larger interesting scholarly topic, I think we need to wait for high quality reliable sources to make this connection first and wait for quality sourcing to look into how much of this is a joke and how much of it is serious and makes sense in terms of sociological theory etc. In the meantime, it seems current sourcing on the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a couple sentences on the 4chan article, perhaps under the threats of violence section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan#Threats_of_violence --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BoboMeowCat: I recognized that this might have trouble at AfD, but there is no way to know in advance how much data will be brought to the table once people get into the discussion. That's why the process is to leave the article in existence while people argue, especially in close cases. And of course the notion of expunging "bad" topics by administrator fiat is absolutely no part of anything we want Wikipedia to be. I do recognize that the best outcome would be if you or someone else can suggest a way to tie this in with past sociological work on polygamy and/or social inequality in general, so that it ends up as a few lines in a more relevant article. But I am not happy with the notion of sending it to 4chan, because there is no particular reason this concept should remain tied to that one source. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, I can agree with the intellectual dissatisfaction of putting this in the 4chan article, but given the current sourcing, I'm having a hard time thinking of another article where a section on the phrase "beta uprising" would not be wp:undue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. It's alright to make an IAR speedy deletion close in obvious cases, but this wasn't obvious enough. There are enough sources online to hold a debate, and the close was out of process. It's likely the article would get merged or deleted, but I don't see any reason why we can't give it a full 7-day run. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion after taking time to look into it this morning, and per SV, Andreas, Johnuniq and BoboMeowCat. Victoria (tk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist unlikely to be keep-worthy, but that is why we have AfD, for the unlikely cases. This is not a good example for a sppedy close, especially as a SNOW close was out of the question. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Relist The reasons given for deletion were outside of administrator discretion. The existence of sources is an editorial matter to be decided by consensus, thus the purpose of the AfD. If it can be explained to me how this falls under our criteria for speedy deletion I will certainly reconsider my position. HighInBC 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, then delete again It should briefly exist for procedural reasons, but if Milhouse is not a memeisn't meme enough after all these years, how can something that's only been trendy for a few days measure up? Lack of serious sourcing aside, the concept is flawed. Elliott Rodgers whined about creating a mountain of skulls, then died far short of his goal. Harper-Mercer claimed to want fame, but took the coward's way instead of braving the jailhouse interview spotlight. These betas didn't rise up, they chickened out. And if there ever is a succesful uprising, it'll mean those behind it weren't really betas. But it's mainly the lack of sources. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist even though it probably would not survive an AfD. Speedy deletion is only when there is broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, and A7 does not apply to culture. sst✈ 05:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. No speedy deletion criterion applied. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Reopen - even when your politics are righteous, Wikipedia ain't the place to do battle with your opponents. WilyD 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Relisting at AFD is just process wonkery since it has no chance as it is currently sourced. shoy (reactions) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Completely non-notable subject. Relisting would be a waste of good editors' time. This is why we have WP:IAR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly out-of-process deletion. Meets no speedy criteria, WP:IAR isn't a good idea when there is clear and significant opposition. Looking, the sources may well hit WP:N. May not, but that's why we have a 7 day discussion. On top of that, this was a stupid deletion. If we are going to delete it, I'd prefer it _be_ deleted rather than hang around in DRV for a while and then AfD for a while. Better it just stay in AfD. And yes, the fact that a DRV would be coming when speedy deleting an article with all (2) !votes as keep was pretty obvious. overturn and list at AfDHobit (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Absolutely textbook example of an IDONTLIKEIT supervote. That's not how AfD works. That's even more draconian than how Speedy Deletion works. Trout to the closer. (P.S. I'm probably in the Delete camp when the matter is fairly considered at AfD). Carrite (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I searched for this topic after reading reports on the BBC and twitter about "Beta uprising". Previous diffs of the article informed me of what the concept was and I feel more informed than before reading the article balor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.65.200 (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. For the record, I agree that this article would eventually be deleted and I doubt very seriously that it would pass AfD at this point in time. However I think that this should go through a full AfD because the closure makes this very, very easy to contest - especially as one of the justifications for deletion was that the admin didn't want to popularize the term. I don't think that this is a good reason to close, although I can understand the sentiment. I started working on a version of this in my userspace and so far I'm really not finding enough to justify this having an article. However a full AfD will give this the chance of having a better consensus and a stronger argument against inclusion - and with things like this it's very likely that there will be attempts at re-creation. While it may seem obvious that this should remain deleted, having a closure of this nature can have the unintended consequence of pushing people away. Hear me out on this: when people delete recreations of articles the main thing we point towards is the AfD, even if there was a DRV. If the first thing people come across is the AfD closure this will potentially only reinforce the idea that Wikipedia edits and deletes with an agenda. There is some personal bias here on behalf of the closing admin and while I (as a fellow editor) can see the policy behind her assertion, someone unfamiliar with policy will likely just see the bias and figure that they shouldn't edit here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to paste my version into the article history of this and then revert. I figure that people are more likely to see that then they are my posting here. I can't remember if we can make edits to an article at DRV or not. A quick scan doesn't show anything against it, but I'm slightly leery of this so if it is verboten then just do a history delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as reclosure goes, I'd argue against reclosing it without a more full AfD for the same reasons as leaving it closed. It might be seen as an inevitability here, but I'd feel more comfortable with this having a full AfD rather than the previous AfD and a DRV, as DRVs are rarely as easily seen and well attended as AfDs are. There's only a very slim chance that this could pass currently, but I'd like for it to at least have that chance, despite my own thoughts on the topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: You missed the Edinburgh "threat" investigation, and neglected to mention that the FBI was reported to be investigating the threat in Philadelphia. You make it sound like it is just some idea a few people had on 4chan that no one else reacted to. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just doing a fast and dirty version of it with the expectations that it would be expanded. The main gist I got above is that this is a joke/trolling effort from 4chan/Reddit and the news articles, once the hysteria died down, seemed to suggest this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a threat was posted about an alleged act of violence at Leiden University (that never materialised). A 21 years old man from Valkenburg who's a student at the university was arrested. A troll, but on the national news, no less. Darth Viller (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A recent Washington Post article has some baring bearing--perhaps putting this into the range of meeting WP:N. It also probably means we'll be seeing yet another DRV on involuntary celibates. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I've got to say, it feels like an article written for the purpose of meeting WP:N on a number of topics here. Anyone commenting here want to fess up to being Caitlin Dewey IRL? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word is "bearing", as in relevance, not "baring", which means to remove your clothes. That article does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability at all, and involuntary celibacy is still just as non-notable (although the usual suspects are at it again, this time with incels). Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that word kept looking wrong but I couldn't figure out why. Thought it was spelling, not wrong word. Given the fact I'm grading some 250 pages of text this weekend, I probably shouldn't be making mistakes like that... In any case, could you explain why a source in a national newspaper primarily on the topic doesn't help meet WP:N? Or are you using encyclopedic notability in some other way than the sources that count toward our general notability guidelines? Hobit (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Malapropisms aside, I cannot see how the Washington Post article supports the creation of an article on the so-called "Beta uprising", and besides mentioning it as a joke in passing, it's not even about that topic. Seriously, this kind of nonsense has gone on too long. If you can't see the problem, you probably should stay away from article creation. Stick to video games. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The term is in the title of the article and the article is largely about how these folks interact with the world. The hook of the story is the recent shooting and how it may well have been someone who posted on the forum. I agree it may not move us past WP:N's bar, but it certainly contributes to the notability of the topic, even if the topic is a "joke". Hobit (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question: is there enough coverage to show a link between the two to where beta uprising could be merged into the current article for incels? This together could probably show a keep for one whole article rather than several separate things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may be the best way forward. I suspect at AfD I'll !vote to merge. Hobit (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an article on the combined topic of "incels" and "beta uprising" would probably involve a great deal of OR and synth. Most of the sources that mention "beta uprising" do not use the neologism of "incel". I don't think we can justify combining these in a single article based on 1 article that discusses them together.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist This does not qualify under WP:CSD (BBC article alone rules out A7), and the rational for closing is inadequate. The closer is probably right in their analysis, but procedurally that should have been added as a delete vote, not prompted closing of the discussion. Mamyles (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and possibly merge with Incels (if that article survives AFD). Also, a new and very reliable source for this concept just appeared: [8]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
