Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists

Community reassessment

The Fine Young Capitalists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: A majority of discussants at here and the article-talk-page agrees about problems with the current version of the article (esp. with the quality and reliability of the sources).Thus, weighing the arguments from the participants, there is a Consensus for a GA-delisting.Godric on Leave (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the sources used when it was made a good article were of very poor quality (please see discussion on article talk page.) The notability of the subject is questionable - WP:BLP1E may apply. Mostly, it hard fails the verifiability requirement of being a good article, and without the information included that was previously sourced poorly, the article'd be tiny and could hardly be considered to meet the 'broad coverage' requirement of being a good article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article for a while, but I see a talk page discussion on sources and content (and there is clear disagreement between editors), and a number of recent edits that haven't gained clear consensus on the talk page. I didn't have time to go through every edit, but I doubt that the current revision is any better than the version that passed GA. What is obvious is the number of sources removed from the article: this was without consensus as evident on the talk page. Something needs to be done to the article, and leaving it in its current state (with GA status stripped) is certainly not the best solution for readers. feminist 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

An article being "tiny" has never stopped an article from being high quality. If being tiny was grounds to remove an article from its current status then MissingNo. should be removed from Featured Article. The vagueness of the nominator's when it comes to the sourcing in general here is rather unprofessional as its lack of specifics prevents people from actually fixing the article to maintain its GA status. GamerPro64 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably other "tiny" articles have better sourcing than this one did. I don't know if some things have changed in the last three years, but a distressing number of the sources here are/were not reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

how did this article pass GA in the first place? several nonRS: campusreform, gameranx, cinemablend, gamesnosh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't explain why Daily Dot and GamePoltics were also removed. The ones you mentioned besides campusreform, which I know nothing about, are unreliable on here. GamerPro64 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, again I have to ask how that passed GA originally, it's riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspect the article was incompletely or just not screened. Artw (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The GA assessement is here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:The_Fine_Young_Capitalists#GA_Review ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree with PeterTheFourth there. Artw (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with this GAR, but as the (second) GAN reviewer, I take issue with the idea that the version on December 3, 2015 was "riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL" and therefore I didn't review it properly. The bit in the article I promoted said that TFC responded to criticism by "by offering to sell" t-shirts. That's not the same thing as "sold". The wording means that it was just an offer, not that it actually got sold. --PresN 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

per wp:crystalball "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

1. The t-shirts didn't happen. Should not have been included.
2. "Later, TFYC reported a resolution to its disagreement with Quinn, though founder Matthew Rappard later stated their agreement never went through" That's reporting on something that didn't happen.
3. There was the part about SNless that I had to take out, because it didn't happen either.

Those are the crystalball problems.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

An interview (from a questionable RS, probably nonRS) was used to support these claims:

1. "most would go to charity," a crystalball and unverifiable via the interview
2. "TFYC reported a resolution" ignoring the crystalball part of it not having happened, this should not have been included because an interview from only one party can't be used to verify a resolution to an issue between two parties.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

All of those "events" were to take place in the past. The article correctly stated that they had been planned, but did not happen- i.e. that the plans were real, but did not move beyond plans. Crystalball is about future events, not past events that did not make it out of the planning stages. Had the article said "TFYC plans to release t-shirts", or "TFYC is going to release t-shirts", then you'd be correct in calling it crystalball, but it didn't. You are fundamentally misreading the guideline. Additionally, I'm not going to argue whether or not those sources are reliable, but to hold that for any agreement regarding multiple parties that you need sources from all the parties to include it is absolutely ridiculous. So, if a game developer gets a publishing deal with another company, we need statements from both companies? If there's a trade agreement between 15 countries, we'd better end the sentence with 15 citations? If a source is reliable, and a party claims that an agreement has been made, then at most you could insist on a wording that "X said they reached an agreement with Y" instead of "X made an agreement with Y", but even that is usually going to be pedantic; removing it altogether is just dumb. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd recommend just deleting/redirecting this article if this is the way it's going to be reviewed. This was a flash-in-the-pan piece of gamergate fluff that got some press for being controversial but never went anywhere. If we're going to hold it to the standard that a) anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count, and b) any reporting done by pro-am sources that didn't exist long enough to make it on VG/RS doesn't count, then frankly there's like 2 paragraphs left. Maybe less; does an indiegogo campaign made by TFYC count as a reliable source for even itself? I mean, TFYC isn't a reliable source, apparently, about their own plans and intentions, so all we can source is that a campaign supposedly by them existed, which probably isn't enough to support an article. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "All of those "events" were to take place in the past." Per wp:crystalball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future", they should not have been included. Predictions that could be wrong should not be included. Looking back from 2017, it's clear that many of those predictions were wrong (or unverifiable); they should not have been included
• "anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count" Actually, certain self claims are ok, but Wikipedia is all about what is verifiable, and controversial claims that aren't verified should not have been included. Self-report of controversial claims need secondary sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• uncontroversial: "We call ourselves TFYC. We claim to be radical feminist" - can put that in from an interview.
• controversial: "We have settled a dispute with someone we were in conflict with." - cannot put that in without a secondary source
• needs verification: "We donated $x dollars to charity." - in this case, given that TFYC got mixed in with GG, this is could be controversial, and as a fact, it is not verified though a self-claim.

• "just deleting/redirecting this article" I deleted all the stuff that needed better sourcing (and reverted); there might still be an article left after that. But perhaps the decision on the RS to stew for at least a week. And then after that see what's left.
• "flash-in-the-pan" seeing as TFYC have gone in active, maybe that is reason to merge it in the GGC article.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: There's a book that mentions TFYC that might be worth using in the article. Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age. GamerPro64 02:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Thanks. I'll look into it. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OMG that's a lot to digest. I think a fair bit of that could be used, but I notice some problems but those can be dealt with, I think. But given how long I think it would take to integrate that source, and how weak some of the other sources are, I think removing the GA is the right thing to do for now. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an expert on this article, but perhaps we should just revert the article back to the reviewed version considering that there's little new information and the state of the page has steadily regressed since then? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Satellizer: Many of the issues (incredibly poor vetting of sources, crystal ball stuff) were present in the reviewed version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Satellizer: The article should not have passed its last review. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know if an uninvolved editor needs to delist this as a GA? Or can I do it? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been over a month since anyone weighed in here. The article as written is clearly not GA quality and it should be removed. ForbiddenRocky: I don't know what the protocol is here, but as no one is stepping up to the plate, I'd say go ahead and delist it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Easy call.Closing.Wait!Godric on Leave (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

carrera and ablegamers

"AbleGamers believe they became the target of a DDoS attack over the weekend after the charity founders declined to accept funds from porn star Mercedes Carrera because of her connection to the GamerGate movement, according to the gaming and disability charity."

https://www.polygon.com/2014/12/9/7358899/ablegamers-gamergate-mercedes-carrera-ddos

Planning use this to fill in the missing ref. Also, changes the view of what happened ("refused" v. "pan out")

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done use this to fill in the missing ref -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dense source

GamerPro64 finds this source: Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age

I note: That's a lot to digest. This could be used to fill in some of the missing facts and citations. And to me the source's selection of facts affirms that some of the unverifiable claims from the APGN interview should be replaced with more circumspect statements similar to the above source's presentation.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Pornography

I feel like the connection between this article and the pornography WikiProject is extremely minimal. I haven't researched the topic at all but I've read the WP article and the closest connection seems to be a 1-time collaboration with known pornographic actress Mercedes Carrera. Are there any deeper connections? I compare this to Talk:Baywatch which is not tagged as WP:Pornography despite the fact that one of the show's main actors was a well-known porn actress. If there is a significant connection then this article should be expanded to cover the pornographic aspect. Otherwise I'd suggest removing that tag from the talk page. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)