Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:21, 22 December 2006 editAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,966 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 23:00, 22 December 2006 edit undoHoldenhurst (talk | contribs)419 edits →[]: KeepNext edit →
Line 27: Line 27:
*'''Delete'''. The theory that something must go against the letter of a policy to be deleted is absurd. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. The theory that something must go against the letter of a policy to be deleted is absurd. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Those recommending to keep are correct in stating ] is not a ''policy''. However, it is still a ''guideline'', which does carry more weight in an AfD discussion than a generalized statement calling for its ignoring. To quote ], the main notability guideline: ''It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.'' Likewise, ''One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.'' Look at other AfDs: a majority of the decision to keep and delete is based on such notability guidelines; while not policy, they provide an accepted barometer for whether a site is reasonably covered in third-party sources to be included herein. Any reasonable administrator will ignore, rightfully so, recommendations which simply state ''] is not policy, so it doesn't matter'', as they come off as ''well, the guideline doesn't work for us, so let's give ourselves a free pass here''. Rather than simply stating that obvious truth, those recommending to keep are advised to find ] indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''': Those recommending to keep are correct in stating ] is not a ''policy''. However, it is still a ''guideline'', which does carry more weight in an AfD discussion than a generalized statement calling for its ignoring. To quote ], the main notability guideline: ''It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.'' Likewise, ''One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.'' Look at other AfDs: a majority of the decision to keep and delete is based on such notability guidelines; while not policy, they provide an accepted barometer for whether a site is reasonably covered in third-party sources to be included herein. Any reasonable administrator will ignore, rightfully so, recommendations which simply state ''] is not policy, so it doesn't matter'', as they come off as ''well, the guideline doesn't work for us, so let's give ourselves a free pass here''. Rather than simply stating that obvious truth, those recommending to keep are advised to find ] indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' The arguments were laid out at length last time and there was a clear decision to keep. Obviously the closing admin thought that whatever the status of WP:WEB, the arguments amounted to a case to keep. Nothing has changed since then. Incidentally, I hope that Michaelas10 will withdraw his claim that WP:WEB is policy.--] 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 22 December 2006

Wipipedia

Not a voteIf 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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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}}.
Previous AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia

del, nonnotabke wiki. Since its first momination the article failed to addresss the concerns of notability and verifiability. `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Reading the first debate, I'm leaning towards delete. The concerns were not addressed. Some had an WP:ILIKEIT stance, some wanted to keep the article because "WP:WEB is not policy, so it has no relevance". You'll have to do better than that. Also, whether the "specialist wikis" thrive is not really our business. Punkmorten 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this site meets WP:WEB. Yes, it's not policy, but there's a reason it's around, and it's not to be contravened by a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes. --Kinu /c 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB since I can't find any coverage by reliable sources, awards won or anything else notable. Jayden54 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. I believe that the previous AfD was completely unfair, and people were !voting keep because of the matter of the subject itself, while completely ignoring WP:WEB. This isn't notable, period. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Firstly, WP:Web is not policy. It is inadmissible to delete something because of guidelines. What policy does it fail to meet? Secondly, this is not a vote; it is a debate. The closing admin looked at the debate and decided not to delete, so the stuff about "a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes" is irrelevant.--Brownlee 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Which WP:WEB criteria doesn't it meet?
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - All I could find through Google is two short summaries of the website from two other websites: podcastdirectory.com and the-iron-gate.com. These are not, however, published works or media re-prints.
    • The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. - Nope.
    • The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - There is informedconsent.co.uk, but again, it is not a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster.
    • The WP:ILIKEIT-based votes don't show notability, but rather disturb Misplaced Pages's deletion process. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People keep citing WP:WEB, but this was rejected as policy. Nobody can produce any policy reason for deleting this article, and therefore the clear decision taken recently to keep must stand.--Taxwoman 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to confuse it with some other page, WP:WEB is a confirmed policy. I believe I provided enough reasons for this to fail that certain criteria, and therefore it should not be kept. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Rejected? Can you provide a link to the discussion where it was rejected? It says the following at the top of WP:WEB: This page is a notability criteria guideline for Misplaced Pages, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues so I don't see how it can be rejected. Jayden54 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Here it was downgraded from a proposed policy to a guideline.--Taxwoman 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's still an official guideline that carries weight in these discussions. If there was no such guideline a lot of confusion would exist whether a website is notable or not. This guideline makes it possible to say "XXX is not notable", and applies in this case. This website is not notable. Jayden54 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, you haven't stated any arguments for your vote either, except the claim that WP:WEB is not an official policy. Care to explain your vote? As it stands this website isn't notable enough to be included. Also, you should mention that you are an administrator at that website, since there's some conflict of interest. Thanks! Jayden54 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Given that the article was kept after the last AfD, and there is no policy reason whatsoever to delete it, the onus is on the proposers to find a valid reason for deletion. I have no more conflict of interest than any other editor trying to ensure that Misplaced Pages is not damaged by deletion of a good article. Please note WP:NPA.--Taxwoman 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, no personal attack meant, although in retrospect, my message is a bit harsh. My argument still stands though. This website fails WP:WEB (which has not been rejected as far as I know) so not notable enough to be included. Jayden54 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. AnonMoos seems to advertise this process in Wipipedia. I've added a template on the top of this page of those who come following the notice. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever, dude -- I informed the two most active Wipipedia administrators (both of whom also participate in Misplaced Pages, and one of whom, BalzacFS, was very active in the last AFD, before I had ever even heard of Wipipedia). AnonMoos 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The theory that something must go against the letter of a policy to be deleted is absurd. -Amarkov edits 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Those recommending to keep are correct in stating WP:WEB is not a policy. However, it is still a guideline, which does carry more weight in an AfD discussion than a generalized statement calling for its ignoring. To quote WP:N, the main notability guideline: It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Likewise, One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Look at other AfDs: a majority of the decision to keep and delete is based on such notability guidelines; while not policy, they provide an accepted barometer for whether a site is reasonably covered in third-party sources to be included herein. Any reasonable administrator will ignore, rightfully so, recommendations which simply state WP:WEB is not policy, so it doesn't matter, as they come off as well, the guideline doesn't work for us, so let's give ourselves a free pass here. Rather than simply stating that obvious truth, those recommending to keep are advised to find reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --Kinu /c 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The arguments were laid out at length last time and there was a clear decision to keep. Obviously the closing admin thought that whatever the status of WP:WEB, the arguments amounted to a case to keep. Nothing has changed since then. Incidentally, I hope that Michaelas10 will withdraw his claim that WP:WEB is policy.--Holdenhurst 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic