Talk:WikipediaVision

Website "flickrvision"
There is a similar process at flickrvision. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Regarding the deletion debate, I meant to comment but was too busy to get it in before the discussion was closed and archived. The keep result was based on comments such as:


 * 1) Keep Sources found, coverages proves it notable. Dream Focus 9:54 pm, 5 January 2010, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)
 * 2) Keep - yes, the site has received coverage from reputable sources. - Richard Cavell (talk)

To which I say, so what? Just because reputable sources cover does not necessarily prove it to be notable. Did it not occur to anybody that reputable sources may write about unremarkable, unnotable things? Whether it be to fulfill a quota or just to fill space or pages in a technology column or whatever the reason, my point is this web site is still not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic article and it being covered by reliable sources does not necessarily make it notable. I realize this argument is at the heart of the "inclusionism vs. deletionism" debate and I'm not trying to bring that up nor am I deletionist, I just wanted to get my point across but was unable to because the discussion was closed, regardless I accept the result. -- &oelig; &trade; 12:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-added the notability flag. I agree with the above. Just because someone can find one article somewhere on it, doesn't mean that it's notable. The fact that they all the articles are clustered around Nov 1, 2007 and nothing can be found later proves that site was never especially noteworthy. This should be deleted. 69.28.149.29 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)