Talk:Deletionpedia

Notability

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

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

It is absolutely notable (but should not mater if it is not, but that its a different discussion) . It should be preserved because it is an embarrassment to the deletionist faction of WP. We need to shine the light of day upon their efforts. They not only want to delete articles, now they want to hide 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 they do it 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 hornets' 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)

Aw for crying out loud, so wikipedia deleted articles! get over it 200.105.168.18 (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

Well said. Strongly agree. The article should be kept.Erikina (talk)

No, because there are not enough reliable sources that recognize the notability of the site, though all of this controversy is changing that. I could care less whether the site itself exists or not. Actually, on second thought, I think that I would actually like the site to exist so that others could see much of the absolute crap that gets deleted every hour, especially the stuff that shows up on new page patrol. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you failed to read what you were replying to, which was a critism of wikipedia policy. Anyway, how is Deletionpedia any less notable than, say: Meowth? Both these articles aren't particularly notable, yet they make wikipedia a first stop for information. Erikina (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it, but maybe I didn't "get it." Point taken. As for Meowth, I don't think it to be notable in the least, and I personally think the plethora of articles about every minutae of Pokemon is a plague upon Wikipedia that I would gladly nuke if I had the chance. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Erikina: Even if it is out of control in other places, Wikipedia policy seems (IMHO, at least) to be fully in favor of keeping this particular article. Realkyhick: It's not up to you; it's up to us. We (i.e., the community of Wikipedia editors) disagree with you on Meowth and (apparently) on this article as well. You don't have to agree with it or like it, but you will need to live with it until you and others can convince the rest of the community that an alternative course is preferable. —mako๛ 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

I nominate you for Speedy Deletion, as you do not pass a notability check and you seem intent on diminishing Wikipedia. If you delete every article you don't care for, then everyone else will likely do the same, and very soon there will be no pages at all. Not a figure of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.18.181 (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Definitely. Of all the places where data should be whored, *this* is it. IMHO, who really cares if something is non-notable; noone allows Wikipedia as a primary source anymore anyway, so what can it hurt to have a little too much information? ImMute (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is here. This article currently references The Wall Street Journal, The Industry Standard, De Telegraff, The Enquirer, CIO, and The Inquirer. There are plenty of articles on here that have far less reputable sources than that, and that no one would think of deleting. I understand you saw this and immediately thought it should be deleted, but the point is there are a number of good sources for this article, and as such it's clearly notable. Deleting this will just spark more "Wikipedia editors are evil" debates anyways. TylerNi7 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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))

Your inability to get a statement`s point is your own problem, not wikipedia`s 200.105.168.18 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep, its notable, more than most articles on WP indy_muaddib (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. There's really no compelling reason to remove this article. Moreover, I can see many compelling reasons to keep this (eg: it contains information that is pertinent and could be of use to many people doing research on censorship/self-censorship). The sources seem fine and, it should be noted, are more abundant than most other run-of-the-mill articles. TBQH I could care less about whether the content hurts or helps Wikipedia, the truth is the content should be available here regardless. Ahugenerd (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable, unlike the articles that deletionpedia keeps, geek garbage. 200.105.168.18 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ask yourself this — if not for Slashdot, would we even be having this discussion?" Indeed, ask yourself - if no one who cares heard about this, would we be having this discussion? --MQDuck 05:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The following statement is a bit damning to the nominating editor, no? "As the nominator, I would not have a problem with merging this to D&I in WP. (Yeah I shoulda checked to see if that article existed first. My bad.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmorg55 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep. I changed the line "The result of the discussion was no consensus" to "The result of the discussion was keep" since clearly, the overwhelming majority here voted to keep this article. Basically 1 guy wants to delete so obviously the result was not "no consensus". Anyway, please don't delete things on a whim people. Lest we forget, truthiness was deleted, reinstated, and went on a to become a Featured Article?

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).