Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

Wikipediocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, may as well get this started: it just hasn't got enough coverage yet. Fails WP:GNG, specific guideline WP:WEB. Yes, it was mentioned in a reliable source, exactly once. Is The Daily Dot a reliable source? Hmm... Wikipediocracy is of course a WP:PRIMARY source about itself. And so on. Slashdot it ain't.
In my opinion, this AfD was inevitable, and probably best if an uncontroversial wikignome (and one who is happy to admit when they are wrong) kicks off.
Keep it nice and stick to the relevant criteria for deletion, people. Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that [1] shows enough to demonstrate that, pace Jimbo, Kevin Morris is a proper journalist who has trained other proper journalists and that therefore his work for the Daily Dot counts as journalistic writing that counts as a reliable source. The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles except for the Salon one where it is identified as crucial in the exposure of Young. My WP:Crystal Ball says that it will soon pass the notability criteria with flying colours as it continues to collaborate with journalists in the exposure of problems here. Of course, there I is a chance that Wikipediocracy might end up as the subject of coverage in its own right as it continues to provide exposés on WP/WM.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it is notable enough per several currently cited sources. These sources seem to qualify as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep obviously notable now after the Salon expose. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The daily dot has been profiled in high quality most reliable sources, and its repeated coverage of Wikipediocracy establishes notability. It has been mentioned in other high quality, most reliable sources. The Salon article establishes notability, also Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep- The Salon article is a major source. If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion. On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here. The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis. The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: " trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." That kind of coverage is not what we have here. The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summar[ies]," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable, and so, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets WP:WEB. The question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep now that it is being noticed by the mainstream, and is a significant player in "wiki-wars" that have escaped the cozy confines of Wikipedia itself and are being noticed in the outside world. If Wikipedia Review can have an article, certainly this site, which has taken over that site's role as the most prominent "BADSITE", deserves one. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep but delete the SPS claims made in the article. It barely hits notability guidelines, though. The claims about members etc. may certainly be seen as "unduly self-serving" per Wikipedia RS standards, and WP:BLP must be strictly adhered to with regard to the Q essay/blogpost/article. Collect (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: The self-serving claims were re-added, as well as the needless mention of a living person where the article is about WO and not about that person. Collect (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What needless mention? Wikipediocracy exposed that living person's abuse of Wikipedia and attracted attention from the outside world as a result. It should be in the article, and your attempt to remove it is simply inexplicable. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability in the outside world seems pretty much established now. The tone of the article may still need attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. It meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - there's no doubt of the Keep verdict. The Salon article is a disgracefully sloppy piece of journalism, attacking Wikipedia for the conduct of one editor, when the author should have known how resilient the encyclopedia is against such things. About the article, it's not great, needs work, but we're certainly going to get it, if not now then very soon, so we might as well get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please remove your "WIKIPEDIA FTW" shades. The article attacks Wikipedia because the system failed to kick in and eject an individual who was subverting the site to his own unethical ends until outside pressure was applied. The only 'disgracefully sloppy' thing here is your logic. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• And which blocked user are you, Mr IP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have never been blocked. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• And yet you appear with these sorts of edits. Excuse me whilst I don't believe your story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome to believe it or not, but it's the truth. Your logic is flawed. Not everyone who defends Wikipediocracy must be a blocked user with a vendetta. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94's comment is rather impolite. I thought IPs were encouraged to edit? Anyway there is no need for me to vote, since it appears this item will be kept, but please be nice to other Wikipedians. Optimom (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• They are. However, what do you expect anyone to think, when you see an IP that is clearly anti-Wikipedia (note that anti-Wikipedia and pro-Wikipediocracy are not the same thing) spews bile in their way? Also, if they're anti-Wikipedia, they're not a Wikipedian. But whatever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Out comes the strawman. It takes an extraordinary leap in reasoning to decide my comments are somehow 'anti-Wikipedia'. 'Wikipedia is far from perfect' is not the same as 'WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!11!!!" --81.164.219.235 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Please remove your "WIKIPEDIA FTW" shades". That's essentially a Wikipedia sucks comment. This discussion is unproductive, so we should discontinue it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's a "Wikipedia is not perfect, stop pretending it is" comment. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - To my way of thinking, there are two logical plays here. Either a Keep-and-Expand — and we know with mathematical certainty that this will expand if kept — or a Redirect to Wikipedia Review, which will subsequently grow a third arm from the middle of its forehead as Wikipediocracy-related material migrates there. Ultimately sourcing for the latter would become sufficient to withstand any notability challenge, and the topic page would split off again. Probably the former is a more rational way to build an encyclopedia. I am, of course, an active poster on the Wikipediocracy message board and will leave this opinion in the form of a comment rather than a definitive bolded Keep, but I hope the closing administrator will understand my point. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. for two reasons. Firstly because it appears to meet notability guidelines (and erring on the side of assuming it does is probably better PR than assuming it doesn't), and secondly because it will annoy the hell out of the conspiracy-mongers amongst Wikipediocracy contributors who are so obsessed with their own perceived self-importance that they have to blame the fact that their endless whining usually goes unnoticed on 'censorship', rather than boredom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. This shouldn't be a coatrack for the views of certain Wikipediocracy members, obviously, but Wikipediocracy's involvement in recent Wikipedia controversies, and the consequent coverage in Salon, etc. make this website notable. The fact that some content in the present article violates policy is not a reason to delete, but a reason to edit the article. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG at this stage - Alison ^❤ 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (I'm one of the founders and am a moderator there)
• Keep - I found the article informative. Wikfr (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Obviously notable enough for inclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I would say that it's just on the very edge of notability. Most of the sources slightly mention Wikipediocracy, but don't go into any real depth, so we're left with dealing with snippets. However, the article could certainly use some work. Secondary sources need to be found for two of the sections or they should be removed as not all that relevant. Silverseren^C 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator... and the weather forecast for this AfD is six more days of snow. Hope you will all forgive me from not withdrawing this nomination. It was always going happen and I thought it was best to come from someone like me. Was the nomination in bad faith? I don't think so. (Well I would say that, wouldn't I?). Please do feel free to send me nastygrams and so on. I probably deserve it. I won't mind.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's been at least one Delete opinion, so a withdrawal of the nomination wouldn't of itself end things here. This is actually a borderline notability situation under GNG, but I think the big majority of opinions above reflect the sensible way forward, even if one wants to explain the decision under the policy of WP:IAR rather than the guideline of WP:GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.