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 keep. It's clear that there are sources that are reliable, and as such, it passes the notability argement. (X! · talk)  · @095  ·  01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The first discussion was closed as no consensus, primarily due to the sheer volume of voters directed there from deletionpedia itself and lack of critical analysis of the quality of the sources cited (the second was just a goof). I believe the sources cited are either (1) not independent (i.e. sourced to deletionpedia itself), (2) not reliable (blogs and such), or (3) only trivial mentions, and thus fail the notability guidelines at WP:WEB.

The short version is this: websites must be notable enough to receive substantial non-blog media coverage. Deletionpedia has only been mentioned trivially offweb and this article is nearly all information sourced to deletionpedia itself or blogs.

Long version: there are 15 footnotes. 6 are links to deletionpedia itself. The CIO reference is original research, mentioning the concept of a “wikimorgue” but not deletionpedia. 20 Minuten is a non-reliable Swiss tabloid, and in any case contains only one sentence about deletionpedia, the rest of the (short) article being about Wikipedia itself. The WSJ reference is a textbook trivial mention in a human interest story 99% about Wikipedia. The Industry Standard used to be a real newspaper, but went bankrupt in 2001 and now is essentially a web-only blog, no more reliable than the average blog. Slashdot is just a reposting of one of the Industry Standard articles. The claim that the article was subjected to the Slashdot effect is, of course, more original research; as the reference is only a link to the Slashdot page. The De Telegraaf link (translation is another web-only trivial mention, essentially a human interest blurb. Theinquirer.de is another web-only blog as is ars technica (albeit slightly more well-known). The last source comes the closest, but at the end of the day these are web-only human interest stories. Ars technica is notable, but not reliable enough to establish the notability of other topics on its own. Savidan 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Savidan's clear-cut breakdown of the mostly-unreliable sources being used. Wouldn't it be funny if the Deletionpedia article ended up at Deletionpedia? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionopedia stopped collecting articles in August 2008. This is not the only irony. The two millionth article on wikipedia was put up for deletion. Everyone has deletion horror stories, this is just another one, often perpretrated by the same small group of editors. Rumpsenate (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources cited are universally not reliable (site promoting itself) or do not support topic's notability (brief mention while discussing other real topic). DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per many on the original AfD nomination. Should not have been nominated again. These AfD discussions ironically are just providing more sources. Biofase ^flame| stalk  23:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I thought Deletionpedia got kept the last time around because all the news stories about trying to delete it ended up making it notable.SPNic (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed every source in the article in my nomination. Savidan 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Another source i don't think is in the article yet: [1]. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-reliable and non-notable blog. Savidan 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I don't mind the web-ish sources for a case like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic has attracted international interest - Germany, France, Russia, Hungary, etc. and so is clearly notable. Please note our deletion policy - that repeated nomination in the hope of getting a different outcome may be considered disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not a valid form of deletion discussion. You must demonstrate that the sources are reliable and the mentions non-trivial, which it is clear that those fail. Savidan 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GHITS, "searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources". That was done in this case and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here is an article on arstechnica.com by a Nate Anderson, Senior Editor. Ars Technica was bought by Conde Nast, and since it has editors, this doesn't count as a blog. It's a reliable source that goes into detail on the topic. Abductive (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AT is internet-only and it is in no way clear that Conde Nast edits it to any degree comparable to printed work. There is a serious problem with using this as the primary source to establish notability. Savidan 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a source must be in print. Most of the sources on wikipedia would fail such a test. The only serious problem is that only a few editors have expressed non-notability while the majority of editors seem to have gauged substantive notability. This renomination is just a disruption. Biofase ^flame| stalk  14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site pays their writers and editors. Their activities resemble a print source, and are themselves reported on. Abductive (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Savidan, your dislike of online-only sources is odd. What makes a source printed on dead trees more reliable? Fences&Windows 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: when in doubt, don't delete. Google search results suggest sufficient notability.

http://lifehacker.com/5052543/deletionpedia-compiles-deleted-articles-from-wikipedia (renowned blog; posted by a senior editor)

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/deletionpedia-where-entries-too-trivial-for-wikipedia-live-on.ars (renowned blog; posted by a senior editor)

http://hvg.hu/Tudomany.cool/20080924_wikipedia_deletionpedia_delutube_szocikk.aspx (translation) (Heti Világgazdaság, a Hungarian weekly magazine)

http://www.taz.de/1/leben/internet/artikel/1/friedhof-der-nebensaechlichkeiten/ (translation) (Die Tageszeitung, a German newspaper)

http://www.tagesschau.de/schlusslicht/delitionpedia100.html (translation)(Tagesschau, a German news service)

Other:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-187374450.html (The Mail on Sunday, tabloid, may not meet WP:RS)

http://www.itexaminer.com/wikipedia-wants-to-delete-deletionpedia.aspx (IT Examiner, may not meet WP:RS)

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/deletionpedia-makes-wikipedia-look-good-470367 (may not meet WP:RS) — Rankiri (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources seem sufficient. Artw (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm persuaded by Rankiri's assessment of the sources. Btw, the Mail isn't the best newspaper in the world, but it does in theory have fact-checking, while spewing a heavily biased view of the world. Fences&Windows 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh It's not going to get deleted. It has a bare minimum of sources. It's not a very good article, partly because the subject matter attracts partisans and invites navel gazing. But it meets our minimum standards for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As it is isn't really a large and widely used wiki. As a Wikipedia editor, I haven't even heard about it until I came across this AfD. It only has 63,000 articles, according to this article. The site is basically anti-Wikipedia, and is leans towards WP:SOAPBOX as a result of its functionality and purpose. Groink (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOAPBOX is an internal policy and neither the purpose of the website nor its position toward Wikipedia have any relevance to this discussion. Please stay neutral. — Rankiri (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and size and use doesn't have anything to do with notability. It's their policy to not allow public editing but then the times have the same policy. Biofase ^flame| stalk  03:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Wasted Time R. Buckshot06(prof) 06:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources seem enough and people arguing this is anti-wikipedia do not make a valid point: uncyclopedia also an an article and that website is not "notable in a good way" - SF007 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Can somebody close this? I'm getting tired of it.Biofase ^flame| stalk  14:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources provided are sufficient to prove its notability. Netalarm 14:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep what a joke. Somehow the Wall Street Journal, The Industry Standard, etc. are not notable enough? How arrogant that volunteers with no prestige outside of this site can delete articles which newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal, who are respected around the world find notable enough. Rumpsenate (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per article easilly meeting our noteability standards. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, eh? Per all previous posters that voted to keep it. This seems notable enough to keep, eh? -- 科学高爾夫迷 01:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes all requirements, having significant third party media coverage. Why the hatred people? Stop trying to delete the only record most people have of all the things we've lost. Dream Focus 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too many self-published sources, and lacks historical information about what started Wikipedia, and Deletionpedia the article's subject. This gives the article a biased point of view, and makes the article appear to be no more than an advertisement. 74.178.242.49 (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Mail on Sunday's citation is enough to establish notability, not to mention the Dutch Telegraaf. The Wall Street Journal article isn't itself about Deletionpedia, so doesn't satisfy the notability requirement, but is a helpful addition to the other sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At first glance this would have been a delete from me as well but I see enough sources to keep this one alive, barely. JBsupreme (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2009 (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.