Jump to content

Talk:MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Wow there is really a war going on here on the german wikipedia about this, if it was not notable now it is.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.154 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Actually there are very few sources which even mention the NGO. (Actually it isn't clear either if it is really an NGO, since so far it isn't an eingetragener Verein, since it wasn't charted into the register so far. There is no reliable source stating how many members this organization does have, there are people contesting that it has more than one member)

Most of the sources are considering the deletion policy of the German WP and are not dealing with this organization. So I guess MOGIS is not notable on its own but the information rather should/could be included in the article on the German Wikipedia as controversy. However all the dispute in the German WP on the deletion was organized at de:Fefes Blog, an also rather irrelevant publication with some 3000-4000 unique visitors a day, wich article only survived the RfD debate by using a lot of sock puppets and IPs. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is not de-wiki. Topics not notable enough for de-wiki can be notable for inclusion on this project and you need to do more than simply claiming that it's not notable. Per our notability guideline, a subject that has been covered in multiple reliable sources is considered notable, no matter its legal status or how many members it has. The article contains half a dozen sources explicitly mentioning the organization which is enough to meet the requirements of the guidelines and the other half of the article deals with the controversy that the de-wiki deletion of the article about this subject has created and as such is not incorrect in this article. I understand that you are a user who is mainly active at de-wiki, as such I will assume that you may not know our notability requirements (which are less formalized and sometimes also less strict than on de-wiki). Nevertheless, if you tag an article for reasons of notability, please make yourself familiar with those guidelines. The tag you used is for cases where notability is uncertain and not where you simply claim that it does not exist. Regards SoWhy 17:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the sources mostly there is mentioned a controversy about the deletion policy in the German WP and that the article about MOGIS was deleted. These articles are not about MOGIS. Each tennis club in a little town has more members and more publicity, though they are not notable. Not in the German WP and not in the English WP. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the amount of members is irrelevant for inclusion. The references #1 to 5 in the article are reliable sources about the subject that were written before the de-wiki controversy and ref #6 also talks about the impact the subject had on the movement against internet censorship in Germany as well as talking about the deletion of the article on de-wiki. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Outcry in the German Blogs was massive ! Fefes blog is one of the most famous german blogs, fortunatly the english wikipedia is not the german one, where everything someone considers unimportant tends to be deleted... this has made the german wikipedia a bad place for artists and so on. Claiming socketpuppets can cause a megabyte of deletion discusssion is just ridiculous--84.56.218.115 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]