Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

The history section needs a lot of expanding. Sources almost certainly exist in online publications (Wired archives etc.). I was the principal architect of the campaign, so I will not edit this article other than for cleanup purposes, per WP:COI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split off the MIT-SAFE "coatrack"

The section has been removed here. There is a rough consensus that the section about MIT-SAFE is off-topic for this article.
There is no consensus to split to another article at MIT-SAFE but editors can boldly do so if they find enough sources to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

Per WP:COATRACK, the big section here about MIT-SAFE and its history should be split to another article, MIT-SAFE, leaving behind just the small part that's relevant to the actual topic of this article. While it will make the current article more of a stub, that's okay. A lot of material can be written about the topic, and probably would be (with material actually pertinent) if this were made a stub with a proper focus.

The MIT-SAFE material needs more independent sources, but the organization is probably notable, even if 2017 Google hits aren't very helpful; it will probably require sourcing from era material like Wired magazine back issues, etc. One of its founders had an article here for a while, but it was deleted as a bio at AfD, because the individual was determined – just barely – personally non-notable (and also strenuously objected to the personalized attention that he thought should be focused on the organization).

I have a conflict of interest (former EFF employee), so am not just editing the page to do the split. Doing this as an RfC, because this page probably has few active watch-listers; a regular discussion thread would likely garner little response.
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one article. - add more examples here if possible. If it is not possible to find content separate from MIT, then that seems a notability failure here and instead make a MIT SAFE article and delete this one. Markbassett (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split or simply remove - Out of the entire section The Student Association for Freedom of Expression was also a contributor to the Blue Ribbon Campaign is the only part that has anything to do with the subject of the article, and besides almost the entire section relies on Finkelstein himself, including apparently an email correspondence, as well as a... student newspaper? Quick searches don't find much of anything as far as coverage goes, and if one guy and a student newspaper are all there is, the subject seems mostly likely not independently notable. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove section (or second best, split). The section is out of scope, unreliably sourced, and largely original research. It definitely does not belong here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've boldly removed the content, since it's IMO pretty clearly off topic, and because this RfC has apparently been going on so long that I've been notified of it twice by legobot. I've also taken the liberty of removing the RfC banner since this has pretty well exceeded the normal time frame. It isn't a formal close of any type though, and if anyone wishes to continue discussion then feel free to, but it doesn't look like there's much interest in doing much of that. TimothyJosephWood 19:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.