Talk:Misfits and Magic

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the creators of Misfits and Magic said that they sympathize with those who choose not to watch it? Source: María 2023
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Links

Moved to mainspace by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Misfits and Magic; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Reviewing... new, long enough, QPQ provided, hook in article and followed by citation to a reference containing hook fact. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

... Copyvio 2%, not stub, hook length okay and interesting and clear in source. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory and Theleekycauldron: Main hook is cited to DailyDot which is yellow. Luckily it is used for a piece of information that is non-contentious. It is used three times in the article. Not sure that the hook is interesting but that is subjective. Bruxton (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I don't know the proper way to make such a request and format it, etc. However, this article does not seem to me to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's not balanced. It seems more like advertising. It also seems to contain BLP-violating allegations about JK Rowling.

Yes it is sourced, but that doesn't make it notable. mrout ^talk 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to go to articles for deletion, you're welcome to – although if you do so while the article is boldlinked from the Main Page, it'll be speedy kept. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think you should be commenting on this, given that the article is obviously your baby and you are thus very biased. mrout ^talk 09:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And you are biased as a drive-by deletionist. Add something to the encyclopedia instead of undoing other people's work. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a rather famous quote that goes "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add but when there is nothing left to take away." There is value in removing material that is unnecessary or poorly written, or which covers non-notable material. That you think something is interesting does not justify its inclusion on this website. There is no requirement that someone contribute to Wikipedia by adding more words than he removes.

You also do not own your article just because you wrote it. It is not your baby, which you can or should act protectively towards. I'm not "undoing other people's work", I am suggesting the removal of information from a website. Everything written on this website was written by someone. Are you proposing nothing should ever be removed?

Also it's super cringe, as the kids would say, to creepily follow me around and comment on things I've posted because of a disagreement about another, completely unrelated article. mrout ^talk 10:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)