Fritzmas out of Wikipedia... but Fitzmas still there

[tocqueville]

just checked

[Langis]

1. was it there at one point?

[AllieB]

4. Yes but a bunch of RW crybabies got it removed

:cry:

[tocqueville]

5. yes about 2 weeks

but there were plenty of demands for deletion with the motive that the expression is mainly concentrated to DU and would be forgotten after the indictments

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Have you tried doing a google search for Fitzmas?

I think it's going to be around well after Christmas 2005

[Pirate Smile]

14. It has been all over Daily Kos also. I think even Talking Points Memo

mentioned it.

[Lubernaut]

2. Was it your spelling?

[Autumn Colors]

3. You have a typo

There's no "R" in it. It's "Fitzmas".

[tocqueville]

6. AAAAAAA AAAAAAAA RRRRRR RRRRRR RRRGH

my bad, sorry folks

but it better be checked anyway...

[bluestateguy]

7. I'll tell you what I don't like about wikipedia

The elitism. Why can't an ordinary, working class American have a wiki entry? Why do you have to be famous to have a wiki entry?

[nvliberal]

12. If Wikipedia ever wants to be taken seriously as a research tool,

nothing should appear there that wouldn't be found in a legitimate encyclopedia.

As it is, it can't be taken seriously and certainly isn't reliable.

It's just another way for people to post vanity nonsense.

[Alamom]

8. It's there but under discussion about removal......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzmas

[Seen the light]

9. So vote to keep it

[lateo]

11. How do you comment?

[Jim Lane]

13. Please DON'T comment

The vote on deleting the "Fitzmas" article isn't like one of these brainless polls on AOL or MSNBC where they don't really care about the result and so they allow anyone to show up and vote. Neither DUing this vote (nor, fortunately, freeping this vote) will work.

After a week or so, votes and associated comments will be reviewed by an admin. Because the issue is whether the article conforms to Wikipedia standards, votes from new users, who have no experience with those standards, will be ignored. Some of the more crotchety established users will actually be influenced to vote the other way if they see a whole horde of people coming on just to vote for or against deletion.

One alternative being considered is to merge the information into the article on the Plame affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

If you want to do something useful, go to that article and see if any important information about the whole scandal is missing; if so, add it. You can also check it for RW editorializing that should be deleted or recast into neutral form.