Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick.net: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:33, 29 August 2016

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Patrick.net

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

Non-notable website. The sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The site is in fact notable because it was widely referenced during the housing crash for its arguments, and there are about 500 incoming links from sites such as http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/your-money/25yourmoney.html The site is a common topic of conversation, particularly in the San Francisco area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77C6:B9E0:2CAD:2548:5D2B:FB8A (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — 2602:301:77C6:B9E0:2CAD:2548:5D2B:FB8A (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Incomming links are irrelevant; Wikipedia has established guideline for defining notability at WP:Notability (web), specifically in the "Criteria" section of that guideline. What is needed to establish notability are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see some additional third-party sources that focus on the site or its founder have now been added to the article. If additional third-part references that provide non-trivial coverage of the site can be provided, that would help the article further. It's then up to the Wikipedia community to evaluate the quality of those sources to determine if they meet the threshold of notability as defined at WP:Notability (web), or via the general notability guideline at WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Barek. You have been a tremendous help, and your time is greatly appreciated. I'm Glad to know it's moving in the right direction. Will work on incorporating additional 3rd party articles. There are plenty. Do they all have to be in the form of in-line citations? I'm only asking because it would obviously be easier to add a whole bunch of related articles, but then expand the content and connect it to its respective citations, as time permits. Susannny (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Susannny: There are a few options - the links could be added to the "External Links" section or in a new Further reading section could be added just above the existing external links section; but any links that run afoul of Wikipedia's external links guideline could be removed by others. Optionally, a discussion section could be added to the article talk page at Talk:Patrick.net, where potential references could be listed until any editor has time to review them for later incorporation into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS PAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalBankster (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — OriginalBankster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that OriginalBankster (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Delete. It just doesn't seem to be notable. I can't figure out how it can be a free speech site and a real estate site at the same time anyway, which the lede seems to imply. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - based on the OpEdNews interview and the ABCnews.go.com article, I believe the article (stub) just barely meets the threshold for notability - although I could see an argument that those sources better define the site founder as notable rather than the site itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG, I don't think those sources are enough, and, as Barek said, they better define the founder. (And cue the SPA's with their "keep" !votes that don't say why the subject is notable, and the trolls from the website). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As ThePlatypusofDoom just said, people have been canvassed into this discussion, which, of course, violates our meat-puppetry policy. For the canvass, see [1]. As our policy says, editors found to be a meatpuppet may be blocked from editing. Also, for anyone coming from that website, it is in everyone's best interest if you go ahead and say you came from there, per our conflict of interest policy, though it isn't required unless you're being paid to edit the page. If you are being paid by anyone to edit the page, it is required under the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Also, after reading through that forum page, I can say that very few of us here (including me) are admins and that almost anyone can add notices (such as the one at the top of this page) to any almost page. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nobody here is an admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Delete''' Not notable. Fails [[WP:GNG]], I don't think those sources are enough, and, as Barek said, they better define the founder. (And cue the [[WP:SPA|SPA's]] with their "keep" !votes that don't say why the subject is notable, and the trolls from the website). [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]]  [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(talk)]] 22:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 :*As ThePlatypusofDoom just said, people have been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] into this discussion, which, of course, violates our [[WP:MEAT|meat-puppetry policy]].  For the canvass, see [https://patrick.net/Please+help+prevent+the+patrick.net+wikipedia+page+from+being+deleted].  As our policy says, editors found to be a meatpuppet may be blocked from editing.  Also, for anyone coming from that website, it is in everyone's best interest if you go ahead and say you came from there, per our [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]], though it isn't required unless you're [[WP:PAID|being paid]] to edit the page.  If you are being paid by anyone to edit the page, it is required under the [[m:TOU#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities|Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use]].  Also, after reading through that forum page, I can say that very few of us here (including me) are admins and that almost anyone can add notices (such as the one at the top of this page) to any almost page. -- [[User:Gestrid|Gestrid]] ([[User talk:Gestrid|talk]]) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
+::*Actually, nobody here is an admin. [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]]  [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(talk)]] 23:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)