Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtRemains


 * 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 of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP  c  23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ArtRemains
Rather pretentious article about an art sharing website created last week. Written by Epiphyte, creator of the site. Currently has zero "citizens". Sorry Carlos, come back when it is notable. -- RHaworth 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You would have a lot more credibility if you were able to give objective reasons why you consider the article "pretentious". Ageist disrimination defeats part of the beauty of wikipedia and we currently have 136 citizens.  Sorry RHaworth, it's the first democratic art community (and please correct me if I'm wrong, the only democratic virtual community) and many people out there would consider that something worth noting. -- epiphyte 19:54, 17 May 2006 PST
 * (I think we treat the above as a keep vote!) What's pretentious? Virtually every sentence but mainly the use of "citizen" rather than a straightforward "user". Using your terminology, you have 143 "freeriders" and 1 "active citizen" who has popped up in the last few minutes. But if you want to say it's not pretentious, I won't press the point. But I would like to take you up on the "ageist" remark: who is being ageist and in which direction are you suggesting Wikipedia has an ageist slant? Personally I think WP has a systemic bias towards the young - witness stuff like Thomas the Tank Engine cruft and the non-notable bands of which we delete three or four every day. I try in a small way to offset that bias. -- RHaworth 09:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A citizen is generally thought of as an individual who has certain inalienable rights, especially with regards to political participation. Nonetheless, I went through and changed "citizen" to "member" where appropriate.  The term "freeriders" is what is used to refer to "members" who do not pay taxes.  Just because a wikipedia member is not active or has not "donated to keep wikipedia running" does not mean that they are not members.  You were being ageist when you criticized the article because it covered a subject that was "created last week".  You may feel that WP has a bias towards the young but instead of saying something is not notable because it's too new it's more helpful if you offer objective criterion that define whether or not something is "notable".  I've studied virtual communities fairly extensively and when compared to the sociopolitical and economic structures of other communities (past and present) I would say ArtRemains is quite "notable".  Yes it is new, no, it doesn't get many hits on google or alexis, but I don't think media coverage should equal "notability".  epiphyte 8:01, 18 May 2006 PST

I know that Wikipedia is drowned with bogus articles. I find ArtRemains to be different from any other community before it because of it's structure. I would argue that the way the site is set up is notable; it is extremely unique. I suggest you take a look before spraying weed killer. I understand if Wikipedia does not want the article at this time. I would like to know what exactly it is about the article that makes it deletable. I am curious as to how notability matters at this time. This article was put up early because the people on the site were thinking ahead. The site will likely be notable when it is operational. It is not out of beta yet and it is extremely interesting. Many things are going to happen in the near future. I would appreciate a "wait and see" approach to this deletion rather than a "start swinging your sword and ask questions later" approach. Sincerely, ZekiBaka.


 * Strong Delete Article fails WP:WEB, only 8 relevant google hits, no results on alexa. Big E 1977  03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Zaxem 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.