Talk:Deletionpedia: Difference between revisions
m →Does not meet speedy deletion criteria: re-add comment |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::::[[User:Erikina|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. [[User:Realkyhick|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. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::::[[User:Erikina|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. [[User:Realkyhick|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. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
Hmm mentioned in the Industry Standard and on Slashdot. How is this not notable? Common sense kids, let's use it! [[User:Fippy Darkpaw|Fippy Darkpaw]] ([[User talk:Fippy Darkpaw|talk]]) 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Does not meet speedy deletion criteria == |
== Does not meet speedy deletion criteria == |
||
Revision as of 06:29, 22 September 2008
On Sept 21, 2008, Deletionpedia was linked from Slashdot.org, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
This page is for discussing ways to improve this article, not for debate about Wikipedia policies. Please note that the deletion discussion is closed and this article is being KEPT, so there is no reason to continue supporting or opposing deletion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hmm mentioned in the Industry Standard and on Slashdot. How is this not notable? Common sense kids, let's use it! Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 06:29, 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)
This page is for discussing ways to improve this article, not for debate about Wikipedia policies. Please note that the deletion discussion is closed and this article is being KEPT, so there is no reason to continue supporting or opposing deletion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 (*furrows brow in the direction of RealkyChick*). Lest we forget, truthiness was deleted, reinstated, and went on a to become a Featured Article? Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
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).
- Articles linked from high traffic sites
- Start-Class Internet articles
- Low-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- Start-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- Start-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Start-Class Wikipedia articles
- Low-importance Wikipedia articles
- WikiProject Wikipedia articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press