Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (2nd nomination)

Lostpedia

This article was previously deleted at AfD, and had its deletion confirmed at a DRV in July. A new DRV consensus just overturned the deletion, in light of new evidence: the wiki-site's frequent mentioning on ABC. Please consult the new DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Lost (TV series) Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's bad enough that the Motion of Confidence page now seems to have fictional mentions of occurences of Motions of Confidence, I notice that there is even a Wikipedia article on Darth Vader - what next! Maybe there needs to be a Fictionopedia seperately - probably already is.--Lord of the Isles 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Lost (TV series). According to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites there has been some opposition to even having Lostpedia as a link from Lost (TV series). But if Lostpedia were not even worthy about being mentioned as a link in an article about the subject it relates to, how could that justify making it a separate Wikipedia article of its own? There should be a compromise in which Lostpedia gets mentioned in Lost (TV series), because the Lostpedia wiki would mainly be of interest or use to people who are looking for more information and/or speculation about the series. --Metropolitan90 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my recommendation to delete in order to avoid a "no consensus keep" result. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Wikipedia really does not need this sort of blatant advertising, it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)

Lostpedia fails WP:WEB:

1. “The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” – So far they’ve only really been able to post “blogs” and point 1.1.2 = Fail.
2. “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – No awards cited so = Fail.

Lostpedia fails WP:EL:

1. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft.
2. “Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” – Blatant fail.
3. “A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.” – Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?
4. “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – 3 adverts are pretty objectionable, imho, (left, under content, both Google, and bottom selling hosting.)
5. “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE.
6. “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered.

The behaviour of their sysops attempting to get a link to articles and even creating spam articles does not settle well with me, furthermore the “if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” approach by filling retaliatory AfDs, Prods and Speedy Delete requests was just patently pathetic imo (see history for Memory Alpha). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per MatthewFenton. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete waste of space. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or else delete I don't see how this is significant enough for its own article. Any notability comes from the TV show. Bwithh 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again per MatthewFenton. At least M&R to Lost (TV series). The current article is entirely dedicated to justifying its own existence by citing sources mentioning the site, and will never become encyclopaedic. Lostpedia fans have repeatedly acted in bad faith (as noted by MatthewFenton), which is not very impressive. --N Shar 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry, but I don't see why Lostpedia should be deleted and Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, for examples, shouldn't be kept. Besides, the extensive attempts to find problem with Lostpedia seem more like reaching than genuine concerns. Really, these kinds of frivolous complaints do not improve your arguments. CSS incompatible?? Where? What pages? Copyrights of others? Are you kidding? Lostpedia isn't a site about software piracy (Astalavista) or movies (IsoHunt). 3 Advertisements objectionable? CNN.com has just as many. The nytimes.com page has even more. I don't know about the behavior of the sysops there, but there is certainly plenty of verifiable information on the site, and even if there is fan speculation, it is often identified as such, so it's not a problem. Besides, it's not like there isn't published works on Lost(Amazon for example, has at least 3 Unofficial Guides that I could find without looking hard), and it's not a no-name unknown show. So, there are sources for it as well. But seriously, it seems to me that there is some serious personal animus here. That's a concern that tends to make me doubt the fairness of this proposal. Seems to me that this is a conflic that needs to be resolved more than this article needs to be deleted. Mister.Manticore 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Star Wars and Star Trek are multi-decade global cross-media phenomenona with very large fan followings . Lost is popular but is not comparable in size and scope or popularity to SW/ST.... likewise then for Lostpedia. If it was up to me, I'd probably delete all the fan site articles (if only because the sound of a million fanboys howling is like a sweet lullaby to me), but that's my attempt at "the consensus explanation". Bwithh 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There are around 20 million people a week who watch Lost in the US alone. How many worldwide? A hundred million? That's enough for me to say that any arguments about fan followings are without weight to me. Or more correctly, they weigh against the person using that argument. In 30-40 years, sure, maybe Lost may be forgotten, but so what? So might Star Trek, Star Wars, and Tolkien. That it's as popular as it is today is enough that Wikipedia should include it, and if it one day becomes as unimportant as a buggy whip, well, it's still history. You can find Lost articles in the papers, and books in the stores. And Lostpedia is even mentioned in some of them. Thus the comparison becomes site on site. As such, I'm afraid I don't see that much of a difference. One's about Trek. The other's about Star Wars. This one is about Lost. It's all fine with me. And that's not even getting into the frivolous nature of the other objections. Mister.Manticore 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • it's not like there isn't published works on Lost ... That it's as popular as it is today is enough that Wikipedia should include it — You appear to be (dare I say it) lost, or at least confused about which article is listed in the nomination here. This isn't a deletion discussion for an article on a television series. This is a deletion discussion for an article on a web site. The published works, the articles and the books, have to be about the web site, not about the series. Mere mention in a book is not enough, moreover. Mere inclusion in a book's "list of interesting web sites to visit" appendix isn't enough to hang an encyclopaedia article from. If the only published documentation for a web site is mere mention of it in a book about a television series, then Wikipedia should reflect that, and certainly should not exceed it. WP:WEB specifically mentions non-trivial published works for a reason. Uncle G 10:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, you are confused, as the lines you quoted were responding to the implication that Lostpedia was unsourced and pure fancruft speculation which Matthew Felton brought up. That those sources exist means that they could be using them. So, thus I find his complaint to be unsupported on its face, and thus he would need to confirm it. But since I find that most of his objections were petty and frivolous, I doubt he'll be able to do so. For your appparent objection, you'll have to look elsewhere. Mister.Manticore 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into the main article as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I would say merge in the main lost article but some of the editors over there constantly delete it. If Wookiepedia deserves an article with only the scifi.com site of the week as a reference, lostpedia also deserves an article.[1]--Peephole 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The reason the editors at Lost (TV series) delete links to Lostpedia is, according to this discussion, because of all the fancruft. In a straw-poll-like discussion, the consensus seems to have been that Lostpedia does not deserve its own article, and possibly does not even deserve a link from the main Lost article. In that case, why keep? Wouldn't it make more sense to say delete? --N Shar 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment All the fancruft is hardly an argument. Fancruft is not suitable for wikipedia, yes. But lostpedia is not wikipedia and fancruft should not withhold wikipedia from recognising lostpedia as a notable website. --Peephole 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean it as an argument to delete. I meant it, in fact, as the opposite: the "gatekeepers" of the Lost (TV series) article are probably making a mistake by not including a link. Therefore, merge and redirect could be a viable option. --N Shar 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. As MatthewFenton notes above, there is a long history here (largely by people who otherwise participate either very little or not at all in WP) of trying to get a link to Lostpedia on WP, in any way, shape, or form, including bad faith edits and behavior. Especially given the economic aspects (i.e., WP-driven traffic boosting a site's ad revenue, probably by thousands of dollars a year), we have to be very careful about providing such links. There are dozens of Lost-related fansites, too, so this is a slippery slope. See, for example, the LostCasts AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LostCasts. -- PKtm 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment According to that reasoning we should delete the links to all sites with ads and not link to any sites because it might increase visitors or leads to a "slippery slope". Lostpedia is an honest attempt at building a Lost encyclopedia, not a money making scheme and it certainly doesn't need wikipedia to get visitors. Also, the comments about editors who support inclusion of lostpedia on wikipedia are bordering on personal attacks. I'd suggest you would withold from making such comments.--Peephole 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. Sorry, I won't accept that. The facts (specifically, the WP edit non-history of many of the people voting here for Lostpedia inclusion) speak for themselves, and are well documented in the very lengthy discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites, which this discussion is threatening to repeat once again, with the same people voting in the same way. And sure, revenue considerations have to be brought into this mix. WP is a powerful traffic driver. The bar of notability has to be kept high; we can't have a site considered notable merely because it has 7000 users, especially when there are very considerable quality concerns about its information and approaches. -- PKtm 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Whilst users critique the argument that Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha both have articles, it is a valid point to make, as these articles supposedly passed WP:WEB on the virtue of an article in Sci-fi.com - which Lostpedia has along with much more media coverage to boot. Having been officially recognised by the show producers and company itself on numerous occassions also gives Lostpedia strong notability, as does the response by ABC to set up their own Lost Wiki (undoubtedly in response to the exponential growth the site Lostpedia has experienced in but a year). Thus, Lostpedia deserves to have its own article. And in response to "the slippery slope" I see no real precedence for this, as not to reiterate using the old examples, but allowing other Wikis to have articles did not for instance cause a huge precedent for Star Wars and Star Trek sites being allowed to stay articles on the WP database to my knowledge --Nickb123 3rd 18:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia has had over 30,000,000 page views, which makes it one of the most visited non Mediawiki's on the web.

Lostpedia meets WP:WEB:

1. “The website has a list of Media Coverage [2].
2. “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – Wikipedia has won Sci-Fi's site of the week [3].

Lostpedia meeting WP:EL:

1. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Precident has been set via Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia's entries. It is a far more detailed resource than the LOST article here.
2. “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – Adverts are subtle, more subtle than for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia ones, where precident has been set. Adverts are solely used to cover the costs of the site, which are greater than the advertising revenue.
3. “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses same CSS as a standard Mediawiki installation.
4. “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Lostpedia licenses all images with correct license information to avoid violations of copyright infrigement in the United States. --Plkrtn 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I didn't have to look long to find this image; it was on the front page of Lostpedia. The image is described as "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media." It is also stated that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material ... [conditions removed] ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law" (emphasis mine). However, a high-resolution version of the image is provided! This is not good copyright policy. On the other hand, this is really a straw man. The question is whether the site is notable enough for its own article, not whether it can be linked to from Wikipedia. --N Shar 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to this, Wikipedia itself is no greater in this respect [4] --Nickb123 3rd 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep – Consensus in DRV determined that “Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability”; this AFD is the formal procedure that follows the overturning of its deletion in the DRV.

NOTE: remaining interpersonal issues among some users voting “strongly” for delete:

The first "Strong Delete" vote above is made by a user with a long-time history against Lostpedia, and was banned from Lostpedia for making bad-faith edits-- his opinion is clearly biased from reasons external to WP. Similar editors have likely been recruited by this editor (and/or have their own pre-existing polarized biases) for voting; note the vote histories and comments on past afds on this article, as well as at the main article Lost (TV series), for a list of these editors; these include Seargeantbolt ("Speedy Delete") and pktm ("Strong delete").

Also quoting from the closing comments of the DRV:

"So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability.(snip)

"Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards." --Out-of-focus 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

*"Overturn. I believe this meets WP:WEB and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis." Angela 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

(End quotes from DRV)

In summary, Keep, in accordance with the consensus of the DRV. --Santaduck 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is incredibly misstated. Citing what you label the "closing comments of the DRV" makes it sound like those were the official summary by an admin or something, rather than the contribution of just one person voting to keep (and a person with perhaps 30 WP edits ever). Let's be clear: consensus of the DRV was not to Keep, as you claim. There was no consensus. The closing admin made the judgment call that it was worth putting this article back into the AfD process. So let's be real, and honest. -- PKtm 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Santaduck, the final comment was made by a high ranking member of Wikipedia Board of Trustees --Nickb123 3rd 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, I really don't think so. That user whom you quoted above, User talk:Out-of-focus, has no user page and only a smattering of entries on his talk page. There's no indication in any of this that he's a WP official of any kind. Let's please provide verifiable statements, even in our advocacy. -- PKtm 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm I was referring to the latter quoted comment, by User:Angela, and in her case there is indication that she's a WP official --Nickb123 3rd 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about Angela. However, Santaduck's comment above began with the incredibly misleading/incorrect statement, "Consensus in DRV determined that “Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability”;". That quote came from User:Out-of-focus, not Angela; either way, it proves nothing about "consensus". -- PKtm 22:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted not to reply to such hasty postings from one of the editors with the vendetta. However:

1. PKtm is misleading for saying I quoted Angela on that point. I did not. I suggest he read the text and attribution more carefully. Out-of-focus was cited.
2. My statement about consensus was a paraphrasing of the opening statement on the page by Xoloz. Again, in the case of any question to my version, refer to the original by Xoloz; just scroll to the top of the page. =)
3. Third try: Reiterating the opening of this special "second" afd by Xoloz, voting editors should refer to the DRV URL. I would hazarda guess that some have not referred to it. Any remaining ambiguities are easily addressed by the interested editor by reading the original DRV, which I mentioned. This time, I'll even repeat the link-- here's the url: "A new DRV consensus"

--05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you must notice the first comment right at the top of this page by the administrator who began this discussion, who says speedy deletion was overturned by consensus. This is really a trivial point in the discussion, but just thought I'd clarify in the user's defence that the admin making the decision did address keep as the consensus. However, AFD is of course different --Nickb123 3rd 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It is notable. Note review in Wired News here: [5] and the list maintained here [6]. If the final decision is to merge, it should be merged with Lost Experience as that is where much of the notablitly is from. Although no longer part of WP:WEB standards, check the Alexa rankings for Lospedia here. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: what Nick said.--Captain Insano 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:WEB under criteria #1. Site was used by official representatives of The Lost Experience to distribute an official clue/glyph. Additional References/notes:
  • July 5, 2006 - Site of the Week - by: Ken Newquist of SciFi.com
  • June 20, 2006 - It's not on television, but I'm still 'Lost' - by: Liz Kohman of St. Cloud Times
  • May 2, 2006 - Still Lost? - by: Jason Deans of Guardian Unlimited
  • Was listed in the Official Lost magazine (Issue 6, Page 73)
    • www.lostpedia.com Ridiculously comprehensive encyclopedia of all things Lost. Uses the open source wiki system so is constantly updated.
  • In an article discussing the growth of the wikipedia software, Lostpedia was featured out of thousands of other wikis ^[7].

Please also see Wikipedia's list of wikis for additional precedent on articles for wiki's hosted outside of Wikipedia. That article contains only links to wikis that with their own entry in Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: Some of the statements to notability are not currently noted on the article page, as it was protected/speedy deleted while being written. It should also be noted that MatthewFenton seems to have a vendetta against Lostpedia, submitting a Speedy Deletion (overturned), and adding lostpedia.com to the SPAM blacklist (overturned). He is currently banned from editing Lostpedia, which could be the source of his frustrations. --Jabrwocky7 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I see a whole lot of hand waving about "we have other wikis, so we should have this one too." Wrong. A lot of those articles are kind of crappy upon review, and I'd probably express an opinion to delete those if they were to come to AfD; however, that said, the existence of some uncited messes doesn't justify the existence of other uncited messes. We shouldn't lower our standards for inclusion just because some articles inexplicably get kept. This one fails WP:WEB and has very little about it verifiable by reliable sources. GassyGuy 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • GassyGuy, did you read the "new DRV consensus"? That article refers to some of the issues you raise. --Santaduck 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. GassyGuy 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG Keep Why this had a listing on AfD to begin with is puzzling to me...it's a verifiable internet webpage that's growing exponentially. I think several people have some biases towards wiki's and want this one to not exist. All of the information can't be on Wikipedia, because it would be deemed non-notable or an indiscriminate collection of information...so Lostpedia is a perfect place for it...and it deserves its own article on here, as this is a general purpose encyclopedia.--MonkBirdDuke 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article had and has COI issues and does not demonstrate that it meets WP:WEB. A smerge to Lost Experience (which is a passable imitation of a link-farm in need of cleanup) might be reasonable, but that could have been done at any time; no need for DRV or YAAfD. But that wouldn't be as effective as free advertising, would it ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - i somehow get an overwhelming impression just from reading the upper part of this AfD that some users seem to be simply holding some kind of grudge against it. I don't see Lostpedia as obviously failing either WP:WEB or WP:EL, and i especially don't see how lostpedia fails them any worse than Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha. Talking about which, i don't see how "unverified fancruft" has anything to do with this. Do people even realize what fancruft means? The opening line of WP:CRUFT explains it quite well "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". There's nothing wrong with Fancruft, it's not bad. It's just not fit for an encyclopedia. But fansites by definition exist to serve the 'small population of enthusiastic fans'. So-called "Fancruft" is exactly the kind of external sites are supposed to provide, since it's information that's not appropriate on our own encyclopedia. Arguments like this "Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" is circular. Because even if someone independant added links to lostpedia in wikipedia articles, there is no way to prove who is adding links because they think it's a good idea, and who is adding links because they're affiliated with lostpedia. At the end, it just comes down to the bad faith assumption of "you're adding links to lostpedia, you must be from lospedia and trying to advertise". --`/aksha 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You just "appearing" here confirms to me my suspicions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fenton, what is that supposed to mean? Please explain your comments. --Jabrwocky7 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete consensus has consistently been that website is not independently notable despite claims to the contrary and WP:POINT violations. Eluchil404 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• ABSTAIN Full disclosure - I edit on Lostpedia and haven't been on wikipedia that long, so I don't feel it's appropriate that I vote on this. However, a number of factual inaccuracies have been posted (as well as opinions posing as facts) here that I'd like to correct, many of them by Matthew Fenton. I apologize in advance for the length of this.
  

WP:WEB:
"So far they’ve only really been able to post 'blogs'" Untrue as shown by lostpedia's media coverage page [[8]]. References include businessweek, newsday, and wired news (those aren't "trivial" sources, are they?). It is true that there are blogs listed as well, these include ones hosted by sources like the Chicago Tribune, USA today, and the guardian, in most cases written by the TV critic or pop culture columnist for that publication.
"No awards cited" SciFi weekly site of the week[[9]]. For comparison, this is the only reference provided by Wookieepedia, which has its own page. It should be noted that WP:WEB says that only one of the three criteria needs to be met to merit inclusion.
WP:EL
"Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft"
A comparison of the two sites shows this to be wrong. For a specific example, compare the wikipedia page Lost Experience with the Lostpedia page for the same topic [[10]]. The wikipedia page is fairly detailed, but it is mostly highlights, while the lostpedia version (as far as I can tell) documents it in enough detail that a reader could access every bit of content in the lost experience. This was particularly significant during the online game, as people trying to figure out the puzzles were able to use Lostpedia as a repository of game information while someone referring only to wikipedia wouldn't have sufficient information to solve the puzzles.
Trying to write off Lostpedia as "unverifiable fan cruft" seems like a circular argument to me. It's not a legit site because it has nothing unique beyond fancruft, but the info that goes beyond what wikipedia has is defined as fancruft because it is on a site that's not legit. The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases. And while "cruft" is generally frowned upon on wikipedia (while there's still a fair amount on wiki's Lost pages), wiki policy doesn't list it as a reason for excluding links to external sites.
“Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” I'm not sure what you consider factually inaccurate or unverified. The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable or inaccurate than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases, and the information can be verified by watching the show. Obviously, the information on a site operated using wiki principles will never be 100% correct or verified, as I'm sure wikipedia editors will readily admit, but I'd argue the vast majority of information on Lostpedia is accurate, and as inaccurate info is found, it is corrected. Lostpedia does contain fan speculation, but it is clearly marked and kept separate from the factual information. Such speculation is certainly not inappropriate for a show that actively encourages it, and as long as it as it is presented as opinion and not fact, I don't consider it unverified or original research, not any more than a movie data site would be disqualified for containing user reviews in addition to factual info.
"their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" In fact, independent parties have added links to lostpedia, here's an example from a user who is a longtime wikipedia editor, doesn't mainly edit Lost articles, and as far as I can tell, isn't a lostpedia participant [[11]]. This link was deleted with the reason given being "rm spam" [[12]] even though that was clearly not the intent when it was posted, evidence of bad faith editing on the part of MatthewFenton. From what I've seen (and obviously, I admit it's difficult if even possible to find every instance where links to lostpedia have been added) it's entirely possible that links to lostpedia are automatically assumed to be bad faith "spam" edits, whether they are or not. Above is certainly one example of that happening.
I'd also like to see a reference to where the owner of Lostpedia has added a link to it. If this has happened, I'd agree that this is a neutrality violation. However, in the case of a site that is open to public contribution, it seems likely that many people who would find the site notable could choose to participate in it themselves, thus disqualifying themselves from writing about the site. Also on the topic of neutrality, if it is a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to add links to it, I'd argue that it's also a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to delete links to it as well. Specifically in the case of MatthewFenton, he declared his bad faith intentions on Lostpedia [[13]], immediately began a major edit that would have had an effect on the entire site, without getting any input from other users [[14]], and as a result was banned from the site. If the opinions and edits of those involved with Lostpedia are to be ignored (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it has been argued), I'd suggest that MatthewFenton should be included in that group. And after all, if Lostpedia is truly not notable as some argue, wouldn't someone independent remove the link?
"adverts are pretty objectionable, imho" Your opinion. There are quite a few similar sites that have pages on wikipedia that have quite a bit more advertising. And lostpedia certainly doesn't "primarily exist to sell products or services", especially since the site doesn't sell things at all - looking at the site, I don't find a way to send lostpedia money if I wanted to.
"Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE." I just looked at lostpedia and was able to access it just fine with MSIE. If you're talking about a cosmetic feature not being supported, that doesn't make the site "inaccessible". If you weren't able to access the site, how were you able to create a user account and edit the site, much less read the site to determine whether it's deserving of inclusion on wikipedia? "Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered." Simply not true. Since MatthewFenton was at lostpedia and edited there, his recommendations for GDFL and copyright notices were taken, and the images he referenced in his comments there now have GDFL and other copyright notices. "Unwilling to fix" isn't the same as unwilling to let a brand new user singlehandedly implement a copyright notice policy with no input from the community (particularly one who had made a public declaration of bad faith).
“if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” While I frown upon Lostpedia users creating AfDs for other articles in "retaliation", I think an argument can be made for doing that in good faith. Articles like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have been referenced in comparison, and those arguing that Lostpedia doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:EL have made arguments that, when applied to those other pages, those pages fail as well. In each of these discussions, there have also been wiki editors who have spoken in favor of deleting Lostpedia references, and have favored deleting the two above articles for the same reasons. If a Lostpedia reference is deleted, and criteria given for the deletion, shouldn't other articles that fall under the same criteria be considered for deletion as well? The question is simply, should a set of standards be applied to one article but not another?
"it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)" Lostpedia sysops don't make money from lostpedia, if any profit is made at all (since obviously hosting a site costs money, and income has to cover expenses first), it would only go to the owner of the site. Such an accusation seems ad hominem and unfounded. A similar accusation could be made of the editors of the Lost pages on wikipedia - that they have been removing links to Lostpedia because they're worried that traffic there would decrease traffic to wikipedia. MatthewFenton has also made accusations that Lostpedia engages in google bombing. Are there facts to back up that accusation?
Sorry for the length of this, but I don't want to see a decision like this made based on incorrect (if not intentionally misleading) information. Thanks to all of you who have participated in this discussion - and for those of you have have voted "per MatthewFenton" to be aware that a number of his statements are factually incorrect and that he has shown bias and bad faith in regards to Lostpedia. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)