Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy

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)