Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizendium versus Wikipedia


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium versus Wikipedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Let's nip this in the bud. This page (even with a new title) appears to be waiting for something problomatic or a flamewar. It is impossible to compare the two without either having this be a op-ed or a direct fork of an article. Yank sox 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not because of the tendency for flamage, but because it's something more that allows WP:OR.  --Dennisthe2 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The identical material is (currently) included in the Citizendium article -- this is therefore a fork, and ought not to be. (Not to mention the obvious flame/troll bait it represents." -- Simon Cursitor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Single source not enough for this to be a noted controversy. Title implies original research. &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Problematic. On one hand, it is possible WP:OR. On the other hand, for all I know, this is not only a flamebait, but a bait that is setted by Citizendium editors to show the world that Wikipedia that there exist a cabal or censorship etc (if delete), or to show that there are no standard even if it IS WP:OR. (if keep). Proceed with extreme caution; if vote for any case, please put up good arguments beyond the WP:OR. George Leung 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete any useful comparison content might be worth having in the Citizendum article though I doubt there is much to say about a project that is in its infancy it is crystal ball to suggest that this is a genuine alternative to wikipedia. MLA 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this isn't a real article, it's a thinly veiled claim that Citizendium is better than Wikipedia. As for George Leung's concern - Citizendium's claims under those circumstances would be unsound: if delete, we are deleting a flamebait, inherently POV article, not being an evil cabal. If keep, we would be allowing that article to grow - something I find inappropriate given that the article on Citizendium will, or should be the location of any comparison of WP and CZ since CZ is arguably a fork or offshoot of Wikipedia. Let the standards existing in our AfD processes rule, and any challenge from an opportunistic CZ'er is baseless - we will have followed Wikipedia's standards and reached a reasonable conclusion via consensus. For the record, in this comment I do not imply that WP either is or is not better than CZ - I just can't see this article as anywhere near appropriate. Nihiltres 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The inevitable comparison of Citizendium to Wikipedia is best covered in the Citizendium article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I really wonder what's User:QuackGuru's obsession with creating Wikipedia related articles. --Conti|✉ 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If and when the topic of Wikipedia vs Citizendium comparisons becomes too uweildy for the Citizendium article - properly backed up by reliable secondary sources of course - then perhaps a more comprehensive article can be written.  Right now that set of circumstances does not exist and thus neither should this article.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly frank, that's probably best left in the Citizendium article itself - this would be based off of a precedent set by articles for Everything2 and, by a long shot, Urban Dictionary (which, in its current state, I don't believe has such a comparison - but you get the idea). --Dennisthe2 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is clearly going nowhere. Yanksox is right, it's waiting for some sort of altercation. I also raise the question of how you'd source an article like this; it's inherently going to contain POV unless it's a simple statement of differences between the two sites. --Deskana (ya rly)  16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simple paraphrasing of a single source does not constitute an encyclopedia article on a topic. Obviously this is the sort of topic that could assemble a variety of sources into an interesting article, but for now, it doesn't. Sockatume 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete belongs in the Citizendium article. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment When a lot of voters believe it belongs in the Citizendium article your vote would be merge. Think long and hard about your votes. People are watching us. You never know. A news reporter could write a juicy story about Wikipedians and their real attitudes, and ... I'll let you fill in the blanks. Have a nice day. The truth will prevail. BTY, I vote MERGE. Note to closing administrator: Voters are saying merge and then they vote delete. You are all an interesting bunch. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the culture of Wikipedia is scary. There is alreadly enough coverage. I'll let you in on a secret though: not many people give a damn about Wikipedia. Hence, the press really doesn't care about something as minute as deleting a barely one paragraph article. Yank sox  19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't care about Wikipedia when something good is happening, but as soon as a hint of bad stuff happen, they will flock to it like bees to honey. Personally, I am neutral, but like I said, proceed with caution. Kudos to those that stated these with clear arguments.George Leung 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't happen at the hint of anything slightly bad. I've been here for a year and known about Wiki's existance before that. For the most part the press is somewhat lackadasical about Wiki, they only care in gigantic situations like Essjay and Schelgr., but the press doesn't monitor Wiki, it takes alot of people to jump up and down. This is a simple and small page, stop spitting so much into it, George. You and Quack need to relax. Yank sox  22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alert That's what they said about Essjay in the beginning. Relax? or better yet procede with extreme caution. The votes for delete are a logical fallicy arguement. Therefore, it is a keep. Voting is based on logic and NOT the cabal (if delete). I find it interesting you are all in it together (vote the same). :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a better question is to ask is who are you? Who christened as Wikipedia's ombudsman? Yank sox  00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And another thing: if you keep showing up with nonsensical blanket threats you can kindly show yourself the door. Yank sox  00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * QG, what in blazes does Essjay have to do with this? Don't bring Essjay into the mess.  This article is not about Essjay or how s/he (apparently) relates to this article we're discussing the deletion of, it is about the potential deletion of the article. --Dennisthe2 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wayyyyy too soon. Maybe in a year when sources can cover this. - Denny 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not even sure what this article is supposed to be? Is it about a controversy?  If so, which one - I don't know of any, and the article doesn't bring any forward.  Is it supposed to be a comparison of Wikipedia and Citizendium?  Then it's not an encyclopedic topic, AFAIK - and it surely could be covered on the page about Citizendium, or Wikipedia themselves.  I mean, a "differences" page should only be created when there is substantial and informative material to be collected which could not be produced on the pages about the two items being compared.  In this case, it is all of one line on either to summarize the comparisons - it doesn't need it's own article.  --Haemo 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, no reliable sources to speak of, non-notable topic. Fails just about every policy we have (and probably just about every policy Citizendium has, though I confess I haven't checked).  Xtifr tälk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Section Break
 * Alert The text of the article has significantly expanded. All the votes above have nothing to do with anything. Cordially. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're seriously kidding, right. You've significantly altered the tone of this article in a way which makes it entirely unencyclopedic - note the continual use of "we" for instance.  Furthermore, it's now virtually all WP:OR!  This is an even stronger reason to delete it, and it hasn't even come close to addressing the primary complaint which is why is this topic encyclopedic in the first place? --Haemo 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you should probably have made it clear in this AFD that you are the original creator of the article in question in the first place. I was quite confused.  ---Haemo 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely, you're joking. The article is still serious WP:OR, and there is no other documentation (with the possible exception of the Citizendium article).  Finally, don't even get the idea that you speak for me - not only do you not, I find your pretention of doing so downright insulting.  My !vote stands as is. --Dennisthe2 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look here. The nice upstanding people at Citizendium are not afraid to make a comparison. Are you afraid? :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 07:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we aren't Citizendium? What of it?  --Haemo 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me expand on this, so it doesn't seem too terse - Citizendium is created as a response to Wikipedia. This article is their meta-namespace, to talk about what Citizendium is, and is not.  It's not a mainspace article, and they don't appear to have an article on this in their mainspace either.  There's no clear reasoning why this is an encyclopedic topic - they clearly don't think it is.  --Haemo 07:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm stunned. What in tarnations am I supposed to be afraid of?!  I'm at a point where the only thing I can ask you borders on a personal attack!  Quit with the drama already - the smiley doesn't help.  I have nothing more to say about this. --Dennisthe2 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete excessively self-referential and otherwise problematic. Just because we could do this according to our standards doesn't mean we should. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just adding to say that I don't mind Move to Wikipedia:, but failing that, this is definitely Deletable stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia: space. The obvious decision. Ab e g92 contribs 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I wouldn't even grant this, if I were me. Granted essays are inherently POV as a whole, but this isn't even a good essay. --Dennisthe2 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The current, "expanded" article is a copy of We aren't Citizendium, so there's not much of a point in moving this anywhere. That explains the POV and OR language, too. --Conti|✉ 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Citizendium. The article has nothing which isn't on the Citizendium article, so why the need for a comparison? It also assumes self references, ie assumes that the reader is on Wikipedia (rather than answers.com, etc). Comment: What on earth are all these paranoid references to "you are being watched"!? Come now, the black helicopters are not on their way! --h2g2bob 03:18, 3 April 2007 (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.