Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Site

Open Site

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

Was Proposed for Deletion, but I'm moving it to AfD since it's an old article and the creator and many of the major contributors no longer seem to be active - let's give it a proper discussion. --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PROD reason given by User:John Broughton is:

Site is non-notable, based on Google searches of the founder and the "foundation" which owns the website; website seems to be more a link/ad farm, not an encyclopedia; Open-Site Foundation, Inc. appears to have no Form 990 on file with guidestar.org, so I have doubts that this is in fact a non-profit, which makes this article even more of a pure promotional piece

• Delete - for the reasons I gave at the prod, and because the article is unreferenced/unsourced, and has been tagged as such since February 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- acknowledged spinoff of Open Directory, helps keep our coverage of GFDL encyclopedias complete - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - what is the basis (source?) for saying it's a spinoff? For example, looking at this dmoz.org page, I see it's listed, along with Wikipedia, as a sister site. Also, if it's really a spinoff, then why not just a redirect to Open Directory Project, and a brief paragraph there? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • David Gerard's assertion probably doesn't have a source. Certainly, most of this article doesn't. I can find a source that says that the project was inspired by the Open Directory Project, which isn't quite the same: BADAN BARMAN (2007-02-02). "MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS BY USING GOOGLE CUSTOM SEARCH ENGINE VIA GOOGLE CO-OP" (PDF). 5th International CALIBER — 2007, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 08–10 February, 2007. p. 6. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help). But that's about the only independent source on this subject that I can find, and it doesn't support most of the content of this article. No-one apart from M. Barman, and of course the subject's own creator, has documented this subject at all. And M. Barman gave it just a paragraph in a list of on-line encyclopaedia projects. The primary independent documentation appears to be being done here, in Wikipedia, first, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Even if this project is not legally "tax exempt" yet does not mean this is not a non-profit project or a spam farm--even if their ads are poorly implemented. This project

has been around a while, has a history, and has unique content. That said, this site is not a spam farm and is certainly notable. We've kept a lot less notable sites than this (regarding inclusion)...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflewoman (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep May not be important now, but it once was, so it still is notable. DGG (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - What criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) do you see the website as meeting? (Please be specific.) If you can't point to any specific criteria there, then are you defining "notability" in some other, non-standard way? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Well, we have an article for Citizendium--only real difference is that Citizendium has a few press releases and no ads. I'd say Citizendium is just as notable as Open-Site. Further, if you search just open-site.org on Google, you'll find that the site is quoted and referenced quite a bit legitimately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.156.197 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)