Talk:Deletionpedia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:18, 22 September 2008

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Internet Start‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Wikipedia Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Cyndy Aleo-Carreira (19 September 2008). "A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should Deletionpedia entry be deleted?". The Industry Standard.

Notability

Seems to me it's notable enough to deserve an article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, being an online encyclopedia, I never got the need for notability. - 68.228.46.130 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutly notable and should be preserved because it is an embarasment to the deletionist faction of WP. They need to have the light of day shown upon their efforts. They not only want to delete articles, now they want to hid the remnants of evidence of such deletions. I have little understanding of what motivates deletionists but I have seen indications of their personalities (masked in high mindedness) that are somewhat disturbing. My personal opinion is that the do it if for the sport of it, not for any realistic sense of "improvement" to WP. If they were at all consistent they would go after the hundreds of Pokemon articles, but probably would not want to stir up that hornet's nest. Instead they pick on minor but difficult to substantiate articles such as Chinese copy method. - Leonard G. (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet speedy deletion criteria

Sorry, but the article does not meet the explicit speedy deletion criteria, in that Speedy Deletion is only for an article which "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (per Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion). This article cites an article about Deletionpedia from the Standard, which is prima facia indication of notability, per the WP:notability standards.

The correct procedure is not speedy deletion; it is deletion discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's not prima facie at all. It's a short article and barely more than a trivial mention. Should be deleted speedily, and if not I will immediatly take it to AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, shortness is not part of the criteria for notability. Furthermore, you're misreading the criterion slightly. Speedy delete is not for an article which is not notable-- it is for articles which do not indicate evidence of notability. An article in the Standard is evidence of notability. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please note the following text on Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion: "Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion: Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete.

The history file shows that he placed the speedy-delete tag on the article within one minute-- let me bold-face that-- within one minute of the first edit. I don't think this qualifies as "try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty proposing this for SD so soon after it was created but I really don't think it merits an article. About the reference I did not see it, I am sorry; I saw the slashdot ref, which is definitely not reliable, but missed that one. - Icewedge (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like fellow Wikipedian editors to be a little bit more careful with the AfD tag. I like creators, not deleters. They are more useful. --Akral (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like fellow Wikipedian editors to be a little bit more careful with the AfD tag. I like creators, not deleters. They are more useful." Hear, hear. The mania to delete anything that one doesn't like is hurting Wikipedia (which is exactly the point of the site the article is about). Languagehat (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney! The only reason we're talking about this site is because of a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot. The wave of support it is getting now is attributable to the Slashdot effect and nothing more. The added sources are either DP itself, a couple of other trivial mentions (this includes WSJ, which mentions DP exactly once), and Slashdot discussion. I 110% stand by the speedy-tag and my subsequent AfD nomination

If you "stand by your speedy-tag", you need to re-read the speedy deletion criteria. The article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Period. This is not a matter of discussion; the criteria are not ambiguous. AfD is correct. Speedy is not. Use the right tools.

If correct use of speedy delete is not completely clear to you, you need to read the speedy deletion criteria before you delete any more articles. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're using this article as a straw man for the entire deletion-vs.-inclusion debate, which is wrong. I believe the official WP term would be WP:COATRACK, even though the article itself does not explicitly apply as such, IMHO. Ask yourself this — if not for Slashdot, would we even be having this discussion? It reminds me a bit of Wasilla Assembly of God, which has turned into a coatrack for Sarah Palin bashing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote many words but all i read is "I'm against this article because it is against my beloved wikipedia and i will try every argument i can find to get rid of this article". -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you apparently can't read. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think keeping this article alive will hurt Wikipedia, but trying to suppress it certainly will. If Wikipedia (-defenders) can't stand some criticism, then they just don't understand the fact that it is this bottom-top approach which made Wikipedia what it is, and deleting this article without proper reasons turns this approach upside down and sympathy away from wikipedia. Ironically, this whole discussion gave this article more importance by triggering more news sites to mention deletionpedia and the fuss around it. Trying to suppress opinions in the digital world can sometimes yield the opposite effect... Matthiku (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Salute to Matthiku, well put. On that note, please don't let Wikipedia fall to the same fate as youtube. (Aofi (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit

And threw in my two cents at the too-rapidly-called-for afd debate. 67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Seems to me it's notable enough to deserve an article. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 :Honestly, being an online encyclopedia, I never got the need for notability. - [[Special:Contributions/68.228.46.130|68.228.46.130]] ([[User talk:68.228.46.130|talk]]) 00:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
+:It is absolutly notable and ''should be preserved'' because it is an ''embarasment'' to the deletionist faction of WP. They need to have the light of day shown upon their efforts. They not only want to delete articles, now they want to hid the remnants of evidence of such deletions. I have little understanding of what motivates deletionists but I have seen indications of their personalities (masked in high mindedness) that are somewhat disturbing. My personal opinion is that the  do it if for the sport of it, not for any realistic sense of "improvement" to WP. If they were at all consistent they would go after the hundreds of Pokemon articles, but probably would not want to stir up ''that'' hornet's nest. Instead they pick on minor but difficult to substantiate articles such as [http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Chinese_copy_method Chinese copy method]. -  [[User:Leonard G.|Leonard G.]] ([[User talk:Leonard G.|talk]]) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 == Does not meet speedy deletion criteria ==