Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appropedia


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropedia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally nominated for G11, and declined. Still fails WP:WEB, however. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability in this promotional-sounding article. JJL (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

' As Jimmi pointed out I am a user of the site the same as I am in wikipedia -- although not a founder and I dont work for the 501c3 or have any other conflict of interest. If any of the editors know of a better appropriate technology database please let me know about it - I am not aware of it. AT is not a terribly popular topic - but interest is growing.--Enviro1 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from deleting appropedia until I have fixed it -- having trouble determining how I can demonstrate notability without sounding like a cheerleader or being "promotional sounding" - what is enough? If you can assist with this - please make edits directly to the page. The site has put out press releases showing millions of page views - is that enough or do I need to get Google analytics or something similar.  The website in question is non-commercial, has no advertising and run by a 501c3. The information contained within it is of course plagued by the same challenges as wikipedia - but is the most part a very reliable source for appropriate technology information. In my opinion it is clearly the dominant player in the field and is continuing to aggregate smaller entities of a similar scope. The whole idea is that everyone should work together and eliminate redundancy.  Appropedia has been mentioned in the literature -- but I can only find it once in a peer reviewed conference paper - it is still pretty new -- I have included that article --  is that enough? --Enviro1 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note, the Websites state as non-commercial, advetising content, and or content have nothing todo with it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Also given your apparent (please correct me if i'm wrong) conflict of interest, in your participation with the website in question makes your opinion on notability and the article itself somewhat questionable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on my comment on the above, and complete lack of evidence supporting notability. - 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article was originally eligible for G11, but had been edited before an admin got to it. This site currently has an Alexa ranking of 217,446, but climbing. Still, the organization has not yet achieved enough notoriety to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 21:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - I have added considerable data to the article to support its notability including a reference to the peer reviewed literature, which luckily is available free online. The site is relatively new and only has some 4 million page views. If there is a standard number of hits (or Alexa ranking) a site has to obtain before it is notable - would someone please tell me what that is and I will store the article until Appropedia is notable enough.


 * 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.