Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veropedia

Veropedia

Veropedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Seems like a very new website, but the only independent sources on it seem to be blogs, which are not reliable sources. Since this is a Wikipedia-related topic, possibly move it to Wikipedia:Veropedia or just delete. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete will surely end up being recreated but for now minimal notability. JJL 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete: not yet notable. seems that it might be at some point, but not yet. ^Law/_Disorder 04:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has met notability guidelines in the reception of significant coverage from reliable source material. Notability isn't about the amount of web traffic, it's about whether we have the source material to verify content. We do, so we should have an article. VanTucky ^Talk 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The links in the references section seem to be to blogs, and the talk page is empty save templates, so I don't know what sources you mean. If you do know of some particular sources that covered it, would you provide links to them so they can be used in the article? Or are some of those blogs reliable? I admit that I am not familiar with them, and a brief look didn't indicate that they were. A clarification would be appreciated. --Sopoforic 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

800 words of coverage in the Toronto Star is more than significant, it's exclusive. This article now exceeds the basic notability criteria. VanTucky ^Talk 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:VanTucky. --Bduke 07:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's accumulating press coverage, and deleting it is likely only to lead to a cycle of drama -- Seth Finkelstein 10:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets guidelines etc. Not having many sources is certainly not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve it--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please show me where this website has been discussed in reliable sources. Wikipedians' blogs are NOT reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we can't say whether in the future it will be discussed by reliable sources for sure.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly meets notability due to press coverage. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly does not meet notability due to lack of press coverage.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the press coverage and there's really no point in deleting something that would be recreated in future. Notability is only a guideline and given the drama a deletion here would cause, it's absolutely not worth deleting. Nick 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per VanTucky. Omigod, a bunch of Wikipedia articles you can't nominate for deletion. Can they DO that? Mandsford 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep for now The Slashdot coverage is one non-trivial reliable source and Veropedia already has criticism from notable web 2.0 critic Nicholas Carr so this technically just fails beneath notability. There will almost certainly be additional sources in the very near future so we might as well wait a week or two to see if that in fact occurs and delete if it ends up being a dud (disclaimer: I helped write much of the current article). JoshuaZ 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Changing my opinion to simple keep given the Toronto Star coverage and the upcoming Wired coverage. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: For better or for worse, Wikipedia tends to have a much lower threshold for inclusion as concerns itself. See Category:Wikipedia. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? My impression has generally been the exact opposite. It took forever until we even had an article on Jimbo Wales and one major objection to the Essjay controversy article seemed to do with it being related to Wikipedia. Similarly, some people wanted Daniel Brandt deleted solely because of the Wikipedia connection even though he was notable in other respects. There might be one or two in that category that shouldn't their own articles (such as Wapedia) but by and large the problem goes in the other direction. JoshuaZ 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Take a look at some of those categories underneath Category:Wikipedia like Category:Wikipedias by language, Category:History of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia people. Also, Jimbo's article page was created in 2003, but reverted at his request. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, so? There are more than enough sources for each of the invidual major Wikipedias (albeity with the excepetion of .de and a few others they are only in the original languages). So those are all fine. Of the History set I don't see anything that's problematic by itself aside possibly from Morton Brilliant and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China(a notable topic with a few ok sources the main issue here is that most of the included details are original research). Of people, there are only a handful and some of the people such as Mike Godwin would be notable even without their Wikipedia connections. Of the people the only one I see of questionable notability are Alison Wheeler(meets notability barely), Tim Shell (doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, should probably be AfDed), Joshua Gardner (might be notable, arguably falls under NOT NEWS).Alan Mcilwraith(same issue possibly as Gardner) and all the others are fine. So we have overall one that should be AfDed, a handful of borderlines and the majority as being ok. I don't see much evidence of there being being a lower bar for Wikipedia related topics. JoshuaZ 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying that they're problematic, or that they have no sources. Quite the contrary -- I think they're fine. However, Wikipedians seem to have a skewed view of Wikipedia-related people and events. This doesn't actually bother me ... I have some problems with WP:N anyway, as much as I realize that it's a necessary evil. And a lot of those articles, which are now deemed notable, were created before the issues in them were noteworthy. Take a look at the page histories. Like I said, this doesn't bother me at all, I'm just pointing it out. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (without prejudice against recreation when WP:NOT#NEWS surpassed) - Per JLL will surely be recreated at some time. Much as I like veropedia, the core question is, do we have reliable verifiable sources that Veropedia has gained significant recognition to meet WP:N and WP:NOT as it stands, and at this point in time.

1. Non-blog media attention is minimal, and essentially comprises republications that mirror the slashdot story, and based on the same two sources slashdot itself gives - its developer's blog and veropedia's own self-publication.
2. The number of blog posts from Google suggest that following the slashdot post, Veropedia has achieved some mention, but that its mentions are 1/ as social gossip or a "coming soon" interest, rather than 2/ as a notable encyclopedia (eg: a site that readers are told is notable by sources discussing reference websites).
3. The publications are mostly republication of self-published material provided by Veropedia and its developers, with brief comment (plus one criticism by a party open to concerns that he might focus on anything Wikipedia-related whether notable or not).
   • Veropedia as an reference site: - There is no evidence that as a reference site any independent credible reliable source has yet taken significant note of veropedia.
   • Veropedia as a social buzz, concept, meme or potential future 'watch this spot': - Ideas and concepts do merit articles, but the blogosphere includes many of these so (WP:NOT, WP:N) a degree of exceptionality or a basis to pick this one out as notable, is needed, to meet the criteria "not an indiscriminate collection of information".
4. There does not yet seem to be significant (or any real) analysis and opinion, by reliable sources on reference sites, as said, the mentions seem to be mostly limited to republications of self-published material. There are no obvious secondary sources upon which to base more than a self-description. So it is hard to provide coverage on veropedia as a subject - there are no (or very few) sources of comment and analysis.
5. Finally, considering WP:CRYSTAL whilst veropedia has traction, suppose all all the mentions it ever got, were those it has now, would there be enough to say it had achieved "notability"?

We have at least one reliable source (and republications), plus evidence of a significant amount of transient social gossip. But in fact, WP:NOT#NEWS sets an additional bar over that, that a brief media mention is not enough. Although I started writing this as "keep/weak keep", I feel on reflection and source checking, that at present veropedia is still within the territory of "brief mention in the news"; there is just the one source mention that's pushed these republications. Even though there is public mention and some blogosphere buzz, that for me is the decider. That may change in a week, or a few months, or never. It may even change during this AFD. But it's not to be anticipated that it will. Delete for now, until such time as this status quo has changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See my remark bellow about what CRYSTAL actually says. CRYSTAL applies primarily to future events where the content is speculative. That's not an issue here. Similarly NOT NEWS is to deal with one-offs such as murders, car-crashes, minor elections, scandals, publicity stunts etc, not the existence of a website which continues to exist The most relevant detail is WP:WEB which this meets given the Slashdot and Toronto Star coverage. The fact that Wired is going to do a piece just makes it even more so. JoshuaZ 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not News, like all polices and guidelines, is meant to be interpreted with some degree of common sense. DGG (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly you see as not "common sense". Is there ongoing or independent significant coverage beyond slashdot and its ripples at present? At present, Veropedia has had one significant mention - a republication of its self published self descriptions on a major IT news+discussion website. These were picked up by slashdot and mirrored in many blogs and a couple of sites. There is no apparent coverage beyond that now.

WP:NOT#NEWS is exactly intended to discriminate against matters which receive brief transient coverage in reliable sources (eg see the expression "considers historical notability") - Veropedia's coverage now (WP:CRYSTAL) is one repub of its own self-description, in a slashdot page (plus blogs and such that have reprinted the same self-pub sources), and at this time is brief and transient and no significant wider coverage has been cited to suggest that at this time that is not the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest Keep Possible - No way! Just because it can't keep up with Wikipedia's enormous size doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is a great up-and-coming website that should have a great article to it. I can't believe you even thought of deleting this.   jj137 (Talk) 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, what? Has anyone mentioned Veropedia's size in this discussion at all. The concern is a failure to meet our website notability guidelines. Whether a website is "great" has nothing to do with whether or not it should have a Wikipedia article, and we don't write articles about things simply because proponents claim they are "up-and-coming". JoshuaZ 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes. But have you ever even been to the website? Sorry, but if you really think wikipedia is perfectly reliable, sadly you're wrong. Wikipedia even admits it. This site has taken thousands of wikipedia articles and checked, rechecked, and rechecked again and again to make sure they are perfectly reliable. Within a few years this site is basically going to be a perfectly reliable wikipedia. We could at least do it a little honor by fixing it up some and giving it its own article. Sorry if I offended anyone or "offended wikipedia", but there are lots of people out there who don't trust wikipedia because anyone can change it to say anything. Sadly this site is trying to take wikipedia's articles and make them so that everyone can "trust them". Thanks   jj137 (Talk) 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the essential point. We don't write articles because the subjects have an ideology or lofty goal that we agree with or not. The concerns here are whether the article meets our notability guidelines for websites and whether this runs afoul of various issues discussed in WP:NOT. No one here is claiming that Wikipedia is reliable, nor is anyone saying that Veropedia is a bad idea. The issue is whether we really have enough material to write a worthwhile article about it. (And incidentally, I don't think that "Strongest Keep Possible" is going to have much of a different result than "Strong Keep" especially given that admins generally treat "Strong Keep" pretty close to "keep" anyways and aren't very fond of calls for keeping based on ILIKEIT) JoshuaZ 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And again, I realize that. I'll try to summarize what I'm trying to say in a sentence (or half-sentence): per Jeffrey below. Sufficient press coverage. Sorry, I guess it was kind of hard to get my point across.   jj137 (Talk) 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep for now, but note my COI here. It's quite new but is ramping up at a fast rate and its visibility is on the increase. Delete now, by all means, but it will just end up being recreated soon anyway - Alison ^❤ 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it's in Slashdot, and I think we can reasonably expect more reliable sources to be appearing, increasing its notability. Aleta 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"I think we can reasonably expect more reliable sources to be appearing" ... This is not useful at AFD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" - that's not an issue here. CRYSTAL is to rule out things like Rocky 7 or movies that exist only in speculation from directors. There's no CRYSTAL issue here. JoshuaZ 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment: wow. all i can say about this debate is wow. one damn source. why do we suddenly show all this favoritism because it's a wikipedia relate project? ^Law/_Disorder 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i mean, don't you people have any shame? ^Law/_Disorder 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Throwing all your toys out of the pram because you're not getting your own way is funny, but ultimately completely unhelpful. Please just let the discussion run it's course without making personal attacks on everybody who has expressed an opinion here. Nick 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor is merely profressing frustration at the ability of several admins to game the Wikipedia process in order to pimp a site they're involved with? --Bogwoppit 11:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The Toronto Star has an article about it in today's newspaper or online at [1]. --YUL89YYZ 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is more what WP:RS would require, but still the concern that there is no evidence that it has more than transient news interest persists. At this point WP:NOT and WP:N, the basic inclusion criteria, still seem to be quite far from met. "Beta project of a new concept website roll-out with limited commentary or note" (which is all we have really) is not really enough to support an article yet. As said, sometime, it will have one, I'm sure. But that time is not now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yielding to the opinion of Seth Finkelstein, and many others, herein. 1.) Songgarden 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Nick and Alison...--Cometstyles 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without future prejudice. Getting slashdotted does not make something notable. The Toronto Star article makes me sit up and pay attention a bit more, but I'm still not convinced this meets wp:n. Delete for now. If this really does take off, we'll start to see more mention in the traditional press outlets. It's easy to recreate the article later if that happens, and Wikipedia won't be any worse for having missed jumping on the bandwagon for a few more months. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to cover breaking news. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Declaration - I am a Vero contributor. Notability is really marginal at the moment, and to be honest the article is by necessity quite sketchy; if it was not a Wikipedia-linked project I don't think it would have an article. If it is deleted, it can quite easily be re-created when Vero becomes more notable. ELIMINATORJR 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment indeed, if delete is the decision it should probably be redirected to Wikipedia anyway. JJL 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In which case a straight redirection (with no deletion) would probably be better so we don't lose the history and so a mention if necessary can be added elsewhere with the preexisting content. JoshuaZ 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a usual concern at AFD. if needed though the page could be moved to user space, so the history is kept, the #redirect deleted or changed, and then when it's time, moved back and improved. That's probably the better way to do it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep or Redirect to Wikipedia until more reliable sources. Also note I have a COI. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm in strong support of the site and a contributor, but very few reliable sources for an article. This is a Secret ^account 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think it's quite there in terms of adequate notability. By realistic Wikipedia standards, it probably will be after Wired prints their interview with Danny. No opinion on what to do until then. Cheers, WilyD 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on today's Toronto Star article (approx. 800 words of dedicated coverage).--A. B. ^(talk) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient press coverage. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• If anything needs to be deleted, its Citizendium, not this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Citizendium clearly has more press coverage (although it does look like citations to Larry are about 3/4s of the citations in that article). JoshuaZ 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And not necessarily just the article, in their case. Have they picked a licence yet ? Nick 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, shall we? VanTucky ^Talk 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww. And they still haven't settled on a licence. Nick 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is within the notability guidelines (if only barely). What is also to be considered is the fact that this sight will most likely expand in the future. Also Wikipedia should at the very least provide information on projects it is an active part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Press coverage, especially in the Toronto Star is more than enough to warrant keeping this article. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This one appears to me to be a must-keep, given that it meets WP:Notability and is already an integral part of the wiki approach, which has arisen out of the same address and office space as Wikipedia, is relevant to the wiki project, and arises out of similar concerns about reliability that gave rise to Citizendium. ... Kenosis 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Veropedia isn't wikipedia-related enough to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace. Please tell me you are kidding. Deleting because the sources suck? Surely you digress. How many articles acutally have sources? -Pilotguy contact tower 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as Vantucky. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Veropedia isn't well known enough to be considered for an article.andrewrox424 ^Bleep 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well-known is not an inclusion criterion. WP:WEB is, and it seems to meet that. JoshuaZ 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I would say...Keep. I think it will be more notable in future. It is some what notable. Masterpiece2000 05:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like it matches the requirements to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article appears to meet notability requirements now. E.g. an article in the Nov. 4 Toronto Star [2]. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - <sarcasm>All we need is another headline like "Wikipedia deletes article about one of its rivals"</sarcasm>. The main thrust of WP:IAR is that we should do what is for the good of the project; to me, that means not appearing to be defensive in any way about a site that some might consider a rival. (I personally think it's something that will help prod us into getting flagged versions, and therefore it's a good thing, but that's another matter.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't exactly a rival project since it is working with Wikipedia (they edit the articles up to their standards before importing them over, and they encourage people to donate to the Wikimedia foundation). Furthermore, I'd be inclined to argue that are content decisions should be PR independent. If we start including or not including things for PR reasons we will lose credibility. JoshuaZ 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I don't think whether or not we'll get flak for a decision should ever be at the forefront of our decision making process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable rival. Well known now in Academia. Bearian 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Did anyone notice the domain registration address points to the same address as Wikipedia

• Post office boxes in St. Petersburg. WilyD 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's because it is a post-office box used by Danny. It has already been pointed out that this doesn't look so good. JoshuaZ 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the article in The Star is enough coverage for me, especially when we take into account that even if we delete now, it will almost certainly be legitimately created soon enough. So leave the article. — Soleil (formerly I) 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)