Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyc

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Of the people arguing to keep, two are WP:SPA, whose input I discounted, and the third failed to make any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyc

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}}.

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

Fails WP:GNG. Practically unsourced. Argument for keeping on the talk page was based on the two sources currently cited as "References" in the article. The first is a book I have that, as far as I can tell, doesn't talk about the subject at all. The page number given is the references list page that lists the one citation (of the article on Wikipedia). The other citation curiously cites page 241, but according to GBooks it's only 190 pages long. A search through GBooks reveals it in a list and that's all. Likewise I did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page's log shows that it was deleted 6 October 2009 as the outcome of a deletion discussion, but I can't find that deletion discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Indeed. I noticed that. Also odd is that none of the deletions look to be due to the AfD (i.e. the deletion the G4 refers back to). Also checked encyc.org -- not there either. I imagine it's a mistake, but we might as well ping Jimfbleak anyway in case there's something else we can check (not expecting him to remember a 2009 speedy :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Largo Plazo,Rhododendrites I don't think the discussion ever existed. The entire content of the version I deleted was the SD tag that has caused the confusion and a restatement of the rationale for the first deletion. I deleted since there was no relevant content, but it looks as if I either omitted to check whether there had been an AFD, or did so but forgot to change the deletion rationale. Either way, it seems to be my error, for which I apologise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you Rhododendrites for your interest in the article and the notice on my talk page. I think you might have overlooked p53 in Darius' book where content from Encyc is quoted having to do with mailing lists and control systems. At any rate, Wikipedia is not paper and I would really appreciate it if you would let this article stand. It's really not hurting anything by being here, and future scholars might appreciate Wikipedia having an article on the topic so that they can quickly be brought up to speed. Duck of Luke (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Duck of Luke: Wikipedia is not paper, but has clear rules for article inclusion (WP:N being the most obvious and most relevant to this discussion). "Keep" at an Afd in which contested notability is the nomination reason is typically only considered valid if accompanied by arguments showing how it is notable, and that requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". That means coverage of the subject itself rather than citing it or briefly mentioning it. None of this is to say it's not a high-quality site or even that it's not important, but that it's not "notable". If we don't have standards for inclusion, Wikipedia turns into the rest of the web -- a directory, a place for promotion, an indiscriminate collection of information, and all of the other things it is explicitly not. I did search for sources before nominating, but if you can find some that I couldn't, please do include them here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your desire to improve Wikipedia but I think the slippery slope argument here is a bit exaggerated. Wikipedia carried the Encyc article for a long time and there was no loss of respectability, no mass confusion, no rush of spammers, no taxing of server resources, no problem for anybody.

The article is well-justified considering that the references are not mere newspaper clippings, but important books written by scholars specializing in online knowledge. Wikipedia is more complete and comprehensive with this article in it, and loses literally nothing by keeping it here. Duck of Luke (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that for this one topic there is overwhelming justification for applying different treatment from the one to which all other articles are subjected? Or that we change the notability policy and its implementation overall? If the former, well, that won't fly. If the latter, you can initiate a discuss at a higher level than this article about making alterations to this website's framework for evaluating notability. That matter won't get resolved here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplazo! I'm not trying to change anything, don't worry about that. If anything I would like to keep things simple. We have two very high quality references. Done - keep. Secondarily, read Dariusz' book. It's great. Duck of Luke (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References good. Noteworthy. Yt442 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC) — Yt442 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

you insult me with single purpose message. unfriendly. Yt442 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) further you Rhodo should recuse yourself because you are a paid employee of Wiki edu. and ninja never read Common knowledge reference.[reply]

Sigh... So, I suppose, working for an organization that engages in activities on Wikipedia means that I would use my volunteer account to delete articles about all other online encyclopedias? Because they're in "competition" with Wikipedia or something? And of all the wikis, encyclopedias, and websites with similar aims Encyc is the one I've decided poses the biggest threat? ......
Also, not only have I read Common Knowledge, but I've cited it, assigned it, and in fact got it out to check the citation for this article -- a "reference" which anyone who has a copy or takes the time to check Google Books can see barely even qualifies as a brief mention.
Regarding single-purpose accounts, see WP:SPA. Everyone is entitled to participate, yes, and I didn't mean to offend with the tag. It's more or less standard procedure for these discussions. The idea is that when people come to Wikipedia just to participate in a particular process and achieve a particular result, their opinion is weighed accordingly -- as someone who is here for certain ends rather than to improve Wikipedia to be as good as it can be according to the community's policies and guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes you should recuse due to your commercial interest. 190.210.63.105 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There's some mind-numbingly boring drama spread out over a few blogs and such, and it got a trivial mention in some long list of online encyclopedias in a book, but that seems to be the extent of it. I guess it can be redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where. List of online encyclopedias, maybe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no article it would be removed that that list, however. If a redirect makes sense I'd probably just suggest Encyclopedia, being an occasional abbreviation thereof. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 04:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion currently on this AFD submission but I do smell a little bit of WP:NPOV issues in the article. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This online encyclopedia has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's not surprising, since after eight years, it has only 2396 articles, a random selection of which are strikingly mediocre. It isn't notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of secondary sources to verify the article's notability. Also, lack of neutrality. Also, a conflict of interest, based on the article's creator. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yt442 is my friend. He showed me book. Reference is there but is not on internets. Elguapo9 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Elguapo9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Kindly tell me which page(s) you're talking about and I'd be happy to provide access through the copy I have in front of me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.