Talk:Deletionpedia/Archive 1

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)
 * Yes, this is exactlly what te rabble-rousers need to get, ntability it not that realavent, the cost of storiing a article is practically nil.Scientes.bonum.et.malum (talk) 12:07, 22 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).
 * What a childish attitude. Reply: So they're preserving deleted wikipedia articles in a separate encyclopedia! Get over it!76.105.178.239 (talk)
 * 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. — m a k o ๛  04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've placed untimely "vote" comments, and general commentary about Wikipedia's policies under hats, as seen above. The discussion has been closed, the article was kept, and there's no need for further votes at this time. Talk pages are for improving an article, not for discussing general policy. See WP:TALK for the purpose of talk pages. Those wishing to vote on other pages may visit WP:AFD. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the official-looking box above is the statement of an individual editor, not Wikipedia policy. Consensus can change, and if you think you have a compelling case for deletion that was not addressed in the deletion debate, feel free to post it here or ask for a formal deletion review. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:14, 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  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 Speedy_deletion: "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? -- MQ Duck  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 (*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)

Manticore55 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Keep the article.


 * The official-looking box above is the statement of an individual editor, not Wikipedia policy. Consensus can change, and if you think you have a compelling case for deletion that was not addressed in the deletion debate, feel free to post it here or ask for a formal deletion review. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is strange and seems borderline on abuse. There is no such thing as "final" on wikipedia, especially not due to a single person declaring it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.89.1 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No discussion is final, that's true, but that AFD was closed and people kept weighing in with often-incivil remarks. That was a bad thing. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 23 January 2009 (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).

Images at Deletionpedia
The article notes that Deletionpedia does not include images. However this article (example) has images. I think some images are retained. --80.63.213.182 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this obviously incorrect statement.—greenrd (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is behind Deletionpedia?
Can we say anything about who owns/operates the website and their background? the skomorokh 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source, then this would obviously be of interest. Tempshill (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Related Proposals
In January 2006, I created a curated, non-automated proto-Deletionpedia called "Wekilledya: The Wikipedia Encylobituary". URL: http://myemobook.com/wekilleya.html. It has been offline for quite some time, and I blocked the Internet Archive from indexing it, but the contents of the page are dated and each deleted entry can be verified in the Internet Archive. In January 2007 I moved the site/concept to http://wekilledya.livejournal.com, where it remains online but inactive, and even that second version seems to predate most of the sites discussed here, so I don't feel it's vain or inappropriate to ask that it be mentioned in the "Related Proposals" section of the article. And perhaps the section could be renamed to reflect that in my case the work was done and not just proposed! --m.m. cross 205.205.242.243 (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The related proposals section seems to be pure WP:SYN and I think it should be removed, but if it's kept, here's yet another proposal for something kinda like Deletionpedia. It was a pretty common idea; I'm sure there are more examples. Cool Hand Luke 02:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have remove the entire 'related proposals' section as it has absolutely nothing to do with Deletionpedia. - Icewedge (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It obviously has something to do with it - that's why it is there. It is like the See also sections which routinely appear in our articles.  I shall revert your removal. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not honestly, all the section really talks about is people lamenting Wikipedia deletionism and saying that articles should be saved off site somewhere. There is no evidence that the people who said things things had anything to do with the creation of deletionpedia or that they approve of the way deletionpedia currently runs. - Icewedge (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for an alternative to Deletionpedia at the present time; but I think it was, is, and will be an excellent idea. (When someone takes the trouble to create articles - whether you agree they're worthy is de gustibus - their work should not be erased - *many* might value it.) There should be a plan to insure that these efforts are mirrored so that they're never lost. Twang (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I second the removal of the section. We can argue that context is good, but we don't need a quote or a reasoning for different sites displayed on this one. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Related Proposals section should be kept because it supplies references for the need of something like Deletionpedia. I don't agree that it's WP:SYN as the 2 articles aren't being used in combination to synthesize the concept of Deletionpedia; they both independently come to the conclusion that there needs to be a Wikipedia "trash" that is transparent and can be accessed by anyone to see what is being removed from Wikipedia. That IS what Deletionpedia is.

So if it comes to a vote, I'm all for Keep--Feddx (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't. I've made a new section below. Protonk (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the site still Up?
I've noticed over the last few days the site no longer seems to work properly (I get a bunch of DB and SQL errors). See for yourself here.--Feddx (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've found the answer to my own question. I noticed this from the 19 September 2008 cache of the page, "Downtime  We're not uploading new pages for a week or two while we sort out some database issues :( Normal service will resume ASAP." --Feddx (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Nupedia nor some forks seem to work properly but they still deserve to be referenced here... part of history--ONaNcle (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion related proposals.
Sorry for the fork, but I'm going to copypasta the section text below and try and explain why it isn't appropriate. Deletionpedia is a third party example of what CIO magazine called a "Wikimorgue"; in September 2007 they called such a site a "small but powerful check on Wikipedia's editors, who might think twice about deleting articles if they knew that by routine practice and internal policy, Wikipedia preserved all deleted pages, including their histories and discussions."

In April 2008, Nicholson Baker proposed the creation of the similarly-named “Deletopedia” because:
 * “a lot of good work — verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange — is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia should be able to satisfy.”

Ok. The easy problem to spot is that neither reference actually talks about the subject of the article. We call this section "related proposals" but there is another name for that: a Coatrack. The CIO article suggests (in 2007, before Deletionpedia came into existence) that Wikipedia develop a wikimorgue. This suggestion is part of an overall criticism of wikipedia which includes a discussion of the sorted allegations against Jimbo. The second source also fails to mention the subject, offering the author's similarly named idea as a footer to an article about deletionists.

Neither of these "proposals" were actually proposals in any sense of the word. They were lines put forth by journalists. If we had "related sites" where other notable sites could be mentioned in the prose (rather than in a see also list), that is different. These are two articles of wikipedia criticism which have been included because they make the suggestion that we should hang on to everything deleted from wikipedia. They don't relate to the subject in a meaningful fashion. If we find and use sources that say "Deletionpedia is like...", that is fine. We can't, however, link two articles that say "deleting stuff is bad" and pretend like it is a prose see also section. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Neither of these "proposals" were actually proposals in any sense of the word." You wrote that meaning that neither article was proposing the idea? In ANY sense of the word?


 * Let's look at a definition of the word propose from Webster's:


 * intransitive verb 1 : to form or put forward a plan or intention  &lt;man propose's, but God disposes&gt; 2 obsolete : to engage in talk or discussion 3 : to make an offer of marriage transitive verb 1 a : to set before the mind (as for discussion, imitation, or action)   &lt;propose a plan for settling the dispute&gt; b : to set before someone and especially oneself as an aim or intent   &lt;proposed to spend the summer in Italy&gt; 2 a : to set forth for acceptance or rejection   &lt;propose terms for peace&gt;   &lt;propose a topic for debate&gt; b : to recommend to fill a place or vacancy  : NOMINATE    &lt;propose them for membership&gt; c :' to offer as a toast   &lt;propose'' the happiness of the couple&gt;


 * And now, in the CIO article where it's written:


 * "Love it or hate it, Wikipedia is a powerful force. As the site matures, optimizing that force in the pursuit of truth will mean that Wikipedia must learn from others as much as it teaches."


 * "To start with, say some critics, Wikipedia could stop letting editors hide behind made-up names. Even before Wikiscan, Wikipedia was embarrassed by several scandals, including one in which Wikipedia editor 'essjay,' supposedly a professor of theology with doctorates in theology and canon law, turned out to be a 24-year-old college dropout. Clay Shirky, adjunct professor at New York University, agrees that 'the essjay controversy certainly demonstrates some need for individual reputation' in addition to the group-reputation model that Shirky believes is key to Wikipedia's better articles."


 * "But beyond the quality issues, anonymity and power are a toxic potion, particularly in the hands of people responsible for a project as visible and ambitious as Wikipedia. What Wikiscan reveals more than anything is that when all controls are lifted, many people succumb to tempation."


 * "Another step Wikipedia could take would be to borrow from Wikiscan and similar websites, and create a shadow Wikipedia—or Wikimorgue—composed of all deleted articles. (A commenter also facetiously suggested this idea on Carr's blog, Rough Type.) A Wikimorgue could be a small but powerful check on Wikipedia's editors, who might think twice about deleting articles if they knew that by routine practice and internal policy, Wikipedia preserved all deleted pages, including their histories and discussions."


 * Your contention is that the idea of the "Wikimorgue" was not being proposed? I'm confused.  Unless I'm not privy to something nefarious hidden in these typed words, it reads exactly as if the the author is proposing the idea of a Wikimorgue in several senses of the Webster's definition.  Even if it is an overly critical article (Which it isn't. After reading it a few times, it seems mostly objective on reporting what happens in Wikipedia), it doesn't make it any less of a proposal.  I read the other article as well, and while that is less a proposal of a concept, than a promotion of the concept, the author is proposing the name Deletopedia for it.


 * Please explain why this isn't a proposal in "any sense of the word".--Feddx (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Forest for the trees? Fine. It was a proposal. Great. Neither article covers the subject and we don't have a way for editors to include related material in the bulk of the article where no secondary source has made such an equivalence. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the referenced articles in this section, nobody wrote that either article was about Deletionpedia specifically, that's why it's in the section called Related Proposals of the article on Deletionpedia. The thought was, I'll assume, that some editors see a tie to the fact there have been people that have proposed the idea of a Wikipedia "trash": and Deletionpedia IS that. (See the Robot article.  Lot's of references made by authors as to concepts for robots prior to the term robot ever written or a robot being built.  Are they equally as irrelevant?)


 * And may I ask, what did you mean by this,"and we don't have a way for editors to include related material in the bulk of the article where no secondary source has made such an equivalence"? Sorry I'm just confused by that. Thank you.--Feddx (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Here's my problem.  I'm a deletionist (I guess).  I read this article about deletionpedia and about 2/3rds of the article covers the subject: the website, what it does, how it does it, who it has intrigued.  Then the last third links two articles which criticize wikipedia broadly (fine by me) and mention the idea that someone ought to make a website that hangs on to wikipedia's dirty laundry.  the first article argues as much in order to act as a "check" on rouge admins.  The second article does so because he thinks that people like me are the cancer that is killing wikipedia (loosely construed).  While both of these discuss ideas like deletionpedia (very similar in the case of the second article) neither can be interpreted as a "cause" for the article subject or placed fundamentally close to it in context without some other source saying "Oh, this article in CIO magazine was...".  As written this section hangs the coat of "deletionism sucks" over the rack of "here are these things like deletionpedia".


 * When I say that we don't have license to do that I mean that WP:SYN and WP:NPOV reject the notion of coatracking.  It isn't cool to connect these two articles with the subject when no one else does.  Do we know why deletionpedia was founded?  Was it just someone realizing that a void needed to be filled?  Was it a political statement?  Was it a way of improving wikipedia through the back door?  Who knows.  Why are we introducing these two references and making the presumption that they are connected to the article subject?


 * I could see taking the CIO article and using it as a reference in the body to classify Deletionpedia as a wikimorgue. I can't see much use for the guardian article. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your frankness (a rare quality on here), and I can understand your point somewhat. But I think you're taking this far too personally.


 * But I think the need for this part of the article stems not out of the need to be critical, but to add a sense of notability to the Deletionpedia article itself here. During the deletion debate, there was a lot said on both sides the pointed to the notability of this. And given the relative newness of Deletionpedia, there were scant few really notable 3rd party sources. In some way these 2 articles (and I'm certain a few more) calling for something similar (or exactly like this) could point at the notability for Deletionpedia, and therefore this article.


 * I didn't even realize how critical the Guardian article was until I went and read it. And while the CIO article seems to have a critical bent, I think it makes more of the "anti-elitism" that Larry Sanger's article points to.


 * I still think that we can use these two references in the article without being overly critical of anyone in particular. I'm pretty sure that as it's written now, removing all intention from the people who cited these articles, it's sound logic. No matter the reason for the creation of Deletionpedia, there were ideas proposed to it's creation prior to it's existence.  Much like the Rocket, or the Internet. I don't think this article is being used as WP:COATRACK


 * Now, on to the idea that there's undue criticism. I don't think anyone is targeting you as a "Rogue Editor" or a "cancer" (well not here at least), and after reading this article a few more times, I still don't think anyone is trying to criticize anyone in this article (I can't speak for the authors of the CIO or Guardian article). But even I have to admit that there maybe editors on here that may not have the best intentions.--Feddx (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Guess I should have been more clear.  I don't think anyone here is "targeting me", or editors on wikipedia were "targeting me" in any sense.  But I get the feeling like deletionism gets a bad rap generally from outside critics.  Here's my idea.  I think that the CIO article belongs here.  We should use it in the bulk of the article (I'll go do that in a sec) to note the "wikimorgue" concept.  I don't think these two references merit a separate section for reasons detailed above and below.  As far as the "notability issues" are concerned I agree with icewedge.  If these references mentioned deletionpedia once I wouldn't object to their inclusion.  They don't, so I feel that we then have to be careful about using them without getting into OR/SYN territory. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This accusation is silly: this section in no way resembles any of the examples listed in WP:COATRACK. Please see Wikipedia for a better analogue.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No its not, read the section, Deletionpedia and Wikipedia are about two entirely different types of 'Related projects', Wikipedia primarily discusses projects that stemmed from Wikipedia (eg. Wikibooks, In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki) which have obvious relevance to Wikipedia. Deletionpedia is a COATRACK of people lamenting deletionism and saying the deleted articles should be saved somewhere offsite.
 * You miss the most important point though at Wikipedia RS have connected Wikipedia with the other 'Related projects', in this case no one has yet too do such a thing. When a RS comes forth saying that Nicholson Baker's proposal of 'delete-o-pedia' influenced the creation of Deletionpedia or that deletionpedia would qualify as a "Wikimorgue" by CIO magazines definition, then those claims would merit inclusion. - Icewedge (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the parallel is fine since the section I cited gives much space to the antecedent projects of the BBC. The cases of the deleteopedia, wikimorgue and deletionpedia are much closer - clearly this is an idea whose time has come.  The need for deleted articles to be saved is the common factor here and it is an essential and proper part of the article rather than a tangential issue, as described by WP:COATRACK.  The material is well-sourced and so should stay. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Update
I moved the CIO stuff into the bulk of the article. I'm fine with the rest of the material staying as we hash this out. There isn't consensus to remove or to keep. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Now with the CIO mag section moved to a proper place the Guardian quote should stand out like a sore thumb. What purpose does that quote serve in this article aside from saying that deletionists don't have sufficient imagination to allow wikipedia to be everything this guy thinks it should be? Protonk (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since your edit added no content and gave a stylistic result which even you find unattractive, it is obviously not an improvement and so I shall revert. Having studied the matter furher, I have plans to add more content but not right now.  I saw a mouse in the kitchen last night and must take immediate action lest destructive vermin become established.  The nice thing about Wikipedia is nothing is ever really destroyed and so we can proceed in a more relaxed way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh. Go back to the history.  I tried to add in the CIO reference into the function section using new text in a previous revision.  That revision didn't improve on the text that existed in the "other proposals" section.  So I merely moved CIO's characterization of a similar possibility into the descriptions. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

\p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.185.129 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The revision by Protonk seemed a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem Colonel Warden. However as you have said you wish to add content to the article I think it is also reasonable too give you some time. Lets see what you can do. - Icewedge (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This section remains an OR/SYN problem. The sources do not say that these proposals are related to Deletionpedia in any way. It was a Wikipedia editor who made this connection, and including these in this article as "related proposals" is simply original research or shoehorning unrelated material as related (WP:SYN). Cool Hand Luke 18:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the WP:Syn here. Using the A, B, and C model from the second paragraph of this, what is the C?  Meaning what position are the editors of THIS article advancing by citing the other two articles?  Both of the articles mention a "Wikimorgue", which is what Deletionpedia is.  A place for articles that are deleted from Wikipedia.--Feddx (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the heading for this section? It says "Related proposals." Where in either of those sources does it say, "this proposal is related to Deletionpedia" or anything like that? Nowhere. Basically, we've used sources describing what Deletionpedia is like (A), and sources of prior proposals (B), and we're advancing the position that those proposals are related to Deletionpedia (C). That's OR, specifically SYN. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?
The infobox and one of the categories imply that Deletionpedia is an "encyclopedia". Could anyone please explain that? I would not consider a collection of articles deleted from an encyclopedia to be itself an encyclopedia. Ucucha 16:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest it be called? An archive, maybe?  I would be ok with that.  I haven't looked around all the sources on deletionpedia to see what they call it. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I hadn't really thought about a more fitting description, but "archive" seems fine to me. Ucucha 05:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is still an encyclopedia regardless of its archived status, it may no longer be a Wiki but it is still a collection of material that was (mostly) assembled with encyclopedic intent. - Icewedge  ( talk ) 06:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lately it's not anything but a dead site. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be back up now. Icewedge  ( talk ) 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

END
deletionpedia official website is no more working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.145.87 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Had some database issues but back up now thanks to upgraded hosting and some mediawiki tweaks. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you put out to the press more information about your site? It seems to me that you must spider articles in deletion categories and wait until they hit the deletion logs. Everything on your site seems to have been tagged, even though a significant number of articles are deleted directly by admins. You could also discuss what, if anything, inspired you to make the site. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some of the articles preserved by Deletionpedia were deleted"
"Some of the articles preserved by Deletionpedia were deleted from Wikipedia for being uninteresting, while others were the result of manipulation by political and business interests"

Surely this is a POV? If someone is accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for being uninteresting or inconvenient for politicians or businesses, we could document that, but as the sentence currently stands, we're basically libeling ourselves. Unfortunately, I can't check the article cited, as I can't read German.--Unscented (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be at all surprised if the cited article says that, but we can probably tone it down regardless. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I quickly ran the article through an online translation engine, and it does seem to say that. Accordingly, I have modified the sentence to be less libelous.--Unscented (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars
The deletion debate over this article should maybe be on one of my very favorite pages: Lamest edit wars

I mentioned this here:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars

travb (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Licensing update
Note to maintainer - in order to keep Deletionpedia compliant with WP please keep an eye on Licensing update. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-references
Does the initial link to speedy deletion want removing as a link out of "the encyclopedia"? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we add that...
Should we add that users are unable to create new accounts on Deletionpedia, since there's no account creation option there? Thanks, -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

layoff on the AFD'ing of this article
4 times seems to be enough to have it closed with an overwhelming amount of "keep"'s. Just wastes everyones time.. 4 chances to have deleted are plenty.. are we all agreed..lol -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this site basically dead?
The site has no article of the month chosen, etc. The last person to alter the main page, User:Sysop, last edited on August 9 2009. Is this site dead? And if so, is it dead for legal reasons? This should be of no small interest here, because whatever might have been done to them would presumably be a practice run if not a precedent for a similar attack on Wikipedia.

Besides, an intact Deletionpedia, if referenced from the article-deleted template, would have allowed users of Wikipedia content to confidently maintain copies on their site without fear of becoming Copyright Criminals the moment the article gets deleted.


 * Have you tried emailing the admin? del@dbatley.com.  He's been here before when his site has gone down.--Feddx (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The site does appear to be dead. If it was working, it would have a copy of FastMail.FM; that's according to the site's main help page. (I suspect the deletion justification was correct, but I'm also pretty sure the page is recoverable through the history.--Elvey (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The site was notable.. notability does not expire. even if the site is now dead.. it was notable and generated a good amount of controversy..not to mention that regardless of wether the site is STILL updating it contains a large amount of files in its archives.. therefore the deletion justification definatly WAS NOT correct. It belongs in the wikipedia -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Notability does not expire. Synergee (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletionpedias in other languages
Hi. Recently, I discovered PlusPedia, a similar idea but in German language. Do you know other sites in more languages? Regards. emijrp (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

new speedy delete tool
I have a new tool online to capture deleted articles: https://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/wiki/SpeedyDeletion mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonwikipedia alternatives for deleted wikipedia articles
Where around the web is the best alternative to wikipedia for archiving deleted or about to be deleted wikipedia articles? Where around the web are there alternative nonwikipedia encyclopedic resources for articles that got deleted or about to be deleted from wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don warner saklad (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There Speedy Deletion Wiki on Wikia who seem to be an alternative. http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Speedy_deletion_Wiki  --Sd-100 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deletion Wiki's automated collector hasn't been running lately. But there's sdwiki.org. 172.56.37.121 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Deletionpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/log.1.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deletionpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.cio.com/article/print/141650
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615002244/http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/log.1.txt to http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/log.1.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deletionpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918084710/http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die to http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Online archive Wiki
The first sentence of this article says that Deletionpedia is an "online archive wiki". Later on, the article says the site is "read only" - how can the site be a wiki if it is read only? Vorbee (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Technically, it runs wiki software, but many would agree that it's not a real wiki since it is read-only. However, it is far from the only one: -- GentlemanGhost   (séance)  07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Does not include hoaxes
This article lists articles that Deletionpedia does not host - should it add to this articles which are hoaxes?Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Site down/blanked?
Literally every article on the site gives me an error when I try to load it, the logs are completely nonexistent, and the recent changes page (archived version) shows a bunch of nonsensical spam pages being created on April 21st and literally no other days the past three months. Was the site hacked? Did a bunch of trolls take over? I feel it deserves a mention in the article because the entire site being inaccessible is a pretty noteworthy development. ThunderMite42 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)