Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia

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

Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB. One short article at TheStandard.com, and the link to Slashdot is merely a pickup of that. Just doesn't clear the notability bar. And of course, when it's deleted, you can read about it there. Ironic, isn't it? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Question (rhetorical): It was mentioned by The Wall Street Journal too; WP:WEB says "multiple non-trivial published works"; does "multiple" mean >1? :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails WP:WEB as Realkyhick (talk · contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another deletionists and inclusionists clash.  :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Uh, did anyone actually check the new references? The WSJ article mentions Deletionpedia exactly once. Yep, once, and it was definitely a passing, trivial mention in a larger article about deletion vs. inclusion. The Dutch site mentions it twice in one single paragraph, but I'll be danged if I can figure out what else it says because I don't read Dutch — for all I know, it says Deletionpedia is a porn site. All of the other "new" references are either from Deletionpedia itself, or don't mention it at all and only speak of deletion vs. inclusion in more general terms. Folks, do not make this AfD a straw man for the larger deletion-vs.-inclusion debate, because it is not. It is about this one article about a non-notable web site, and that's all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dishonest statement. It's not a non-notable web site but a web site some people don't want to be mentioned on wikipedia. Maybe because it can be used to support the mentioned debate by showing some very well written articles which were deleted anyway. But the project is useful in itself and none of this makes it or this deletion request discussion a straw man. -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay. MaxHarmony (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suspected as much - it was more of a lame attempt at humor. But with the Dutch, you never know. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per my rationale at Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (2nd nomination) (now closed, was the product of a TW edit conflict). - Icewedge (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I guess my Twinkle is faster than yours. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]]) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete TheStandard.com article is the only original notice of this in a reliable secondary source, according to a Google; no prejudice against recreating in the event of more substantial coverage. TheMolecularMan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Changing to keep now that more substantial coverage has emerged. TheMolecularMan (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's relatively new, but it consists of a considerable body of content that a large number of people felt was notable, even if the majority of people paying attention here at the time did not. Not a scientific sample to be sure, but the very first entry I came across Edward Tudor seems notable enough to me. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does this make the website itself notable? - Icewedge (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The transitive property. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the transitive property does not apply to WP:N, or at least not in that way. If it did nearly every website would be notable. - Icewedge (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, if the deleted subjects were notable, they would not have been deleted. Just because it's a "considerable body of content" doesn't make it notable by any means. I could simply copy-and-pastethe phrase "CHICKEN POO! CHICKEN POO!" 100,000 times over at a web site and it would be a considerable body of content, but otherwise useless. This site isn't much better. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You place a greater faith in the system than here than I do, and clearly expressed in my original note. And no, your hypothetical site does not consititute a "considerable body of content." Besides the utter pointless of such a thing, I would propose that anything which could be compressed 99% with RLE is not considerable.--Belg4mit (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them!  The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again you have twisted my statements around. I am not against the site in the least. But I am against the article, because I don't believe the site meets notability standards. Just because a site isn't notable enough for Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm against it. Heck, I run sites that I wouldn't even think of being notable enough for WP, but they should still exist (if for no other reason than to pay might light bill). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Navel-gazing, with little in the way of sources to write a proper article. Apparently made in response to a Slashdot post. Hi Slashdotters! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single article newspaper article, about half of which is criticizing Wikipedia is more suitable for a short note in Criticism of Wikipedia, probably in the "notability" section. The Slashdot discussion revolved around deletionism vs. inclusionism in Wikipedia; that's hardly hardly an endorsement for deletionpedia. VasileGaburici (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question — Isn't Wikia a good enough place for those articles who do not make Wikipedia muster, or is it not desirable because it doesn't have the adequate search engine optimization capabilities that Wikipedia has? MuZemike (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Just think, in just a few days they will be able to host a copy of their own deleted Wikipedia article!!  JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've switched my !vote as a result of recent changes made to the article, it appears this website has received coverage from multiple third parties which meet our guidelines for reliable sources.  So much for the massive paradox. JBsupreme (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep now that it's being fleshed out a bit. Forget the Large Hadron Collider, that will make the Internets implode! (also delete). Prince of Canadat 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. That's the kind of site that's going to generate quite a bit of buzz solely due to it being related to Wikipedia itself, but there doesn't seem to be all that much non trivial coverage atm. Plus the irony of it all is damn tempting. Equendil Talk 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just updated the article, fleshing it out, adding an infobox and categories; I also cited how WSJ called it a response to the culture clash that exists on Wikipedia between deletionists and inclusionists as well as explained what The Industry Standard thought about Deletionpedia too (hint: we Wikipedia editors are guilty of groupthink). Perhaps mentioning the culture clash will make the outcome of this vote even more ironic. :-)  BTW, I can't recall whether we editors-who-don't-always-log-in when contributing get to vote or not.  It used to be allowed, and if it still is, I vote Keep... 67.101.5.132 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Transwiki to Deletionpedia 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe by default everything sent to AfD should be transwiki'd there? 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article deals with a subject which is both better cited and more notable than many other small wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is strong enough to withstand criticism, competition, etc as presented by the subject of this article. - JustinWick (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]]. Prince of Canadat 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having new page patrollers.  67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment In the process of adding more details to the Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on this June 2008 version of the page for the website Malwarecity, the latest and greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day. Anyone know why the users of new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation?   Sigh.  68.167.252.78 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
 * We have to sleep sometime, y'know. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Malwarecity has been marked for speedy deletion now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that WP cannot handle this sort of criticism, however the sheer virulence of those asking for a delete leads me to suspect that there is an emotional component of some sort. Perhaps I'm in error on this.  In any case, my comment stands, though I should probably issue the disclaimer that, generally speaking, I'm a Mergist and feel that Deletionism is an excellent way to discourage users by destroying their work.  After all, why should anyone bother to be bold if it leads to naught over some Deletionist crusader's subjective opinions about what matters in the world? - 66.30.18.60 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It is nice that such site exists. Deletion of the correct articles just because they are "non-notable" is in my opinion the worst thing that happen to Wikipedia. Even if we delete this article, the link to deletionpedia should be put in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWMPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.65.67 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage is fairly substantial Daimanta (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the shear enjoyment of seeing an article about Deletionpedia in Deletionpedia. :o) okay actually let's call it a Weak Keep based on precedent of similar 'pedia articles staying here and a liberal dose of WP:IAR. Although, I'd definitely remove some of the primary sourcing and suggest a rewrite for grammer and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That IS ironic. It also exposes a very ugly truth about Wikipedia, and that's the REAL reason this article is up for afd right now, isn't it?  keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -Really funny, guys. Slapping an AfD on something 24 minutes old. You might not care about your impression, but this just shows how some WP editors are just intolerant of criticism. --58.69.180.227 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this wrong (note I "voted" keep above) but, you guys that are simply "accusing" others might want to address some of the policies/guidelines or something, otherwise the whole discussion becomes pointless. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Non-trival third-party coverage in publications such as Industry Standard and the Wall Street Journal is more than enough to satisfy notability under WP:WEB, and just about any other policy I can think of. Some of the arguments above seem to imply that there must be quantity in terms of third-party coverage. Nuh-uh. It takes only one. PS. I just took a peek at the site: aside from the fact they'll have a field day if their own article is deleted I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia. That may be neither here nor there, but could be a sign of notable usage, if the Wall Street Journal isn't considered a good enough source for this article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia." Most likely the problems are due to high-traffic due to [slashdot], not due to Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable web site. I took the time to read WP:WEB and it doesn't fail the criteria as far as I can tell. I won't defend it because the Nominator has not made a sufficient case, rather rhetoric without substance behind the nomination. You can't just say a site is non-notable and fails WP:WEB without actually explaining how and why. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Deleting this article looks, to me, like more of an exercise in the behavior it decries, than actual productive maintenance of Wikipedia. I echo the two posters above me.  (Oh, look; hi, 23; funny meeting you here.  :-) --Baylink (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have anything to prove. The verifiability of the subject is what matters, not the subject itself, and this should be no exception. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia until we have a few more sources for a split. It's got sources so it's worth mentioning, but not well covered enough for its own article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It clarifies interesting insight about the normally-invisible workings of Wikipedia, which is notable, and thus transitively is notable.  But, for that matter, the article refers to external sources which seem to make it meet the explicit notability criteria..  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The mention in the Wall Street Journal is enough for me to show that this is notable. I guess it was inevitable that someone would create an afterlife for articles that get killed here.  It's nice to know that in "the culture clash between deletionists and inclusionists", we can now say "Ship this one off to Deletionpedia." Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in the absence of a suitable merge target. This wiki doesn't have Earth-shattering notability, but the article is good enough to keep it on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with merging it to here? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * (EC) Weak keep. It probably fails the letter of WP:WEB - the WSJ article may as well be a prototype of trivial mention, and the Standard.com/Slashdot/Dutch references are essentially one article repeated three times. Still, I think that a bit of systemic bias could be in play here, as its existence is an implied criticism of Wikipedia, and I would rather err towards keeping the article it an attempt to counter that. The merge suggestion a couple of entries above has some merit as well, although it's not the most intuitive target. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is it really non-notable, or just a touchy subject? This is ridiculous. novakreo (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a strong argument for non-notability. Multiple sources are writing about it, and the article is properly written.  I expect the article has been cleaned up since nomination. The article should exist for now, and if there is still conviction to delete, renom it in a few months after it has stabilized. -Verdatum (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Strong Keep Stronimo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It strikes me that the article makes a fairly obvious case for significant coverage in third-party reliable sources.  Potential embarrassment over the subject seems to be the chief problem with the article, and that doesn't amount to a case for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I seem to have trouble finding the claim that this article is embarrassing or any other comments that could make me think the nominators nomination wasn't completely in good faith. I don't think it'd fair that the people discussing keep and delete are looking at completely different nominations; Assuming in good faith as I am that you aren't accusing the nominator of bad faith when he was perfectly valid in at least making sure the article was discussed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the articles cited in this article seem to establish notability. Give WP:RESCUE a go on this before blitzing it. Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - If we delete it, there will be additional news stories about how we deleted this article and it was moved to the very site it was about. Which will make it even more notable. The site is notable and will grow more so no matter what is decided here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. As one of the evil deletionists I would have a conflict of interest in voting unless I were so ambivalent as to abstain anyway. Therefore when I say I agree with both A Man In Black and Xymmax, and that I think WAS 4.250 has a good crystal ball, I should just be ignored.  ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering how arbitrary Wikipedia articles can be kept or deleted at times, this serves as a good back-up and can help some editors blow off some steam---more so than Conservapedia, which even Jimbo Wales kinda praised. Yartett (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as improved. sufficient sources. In any case I think NPOV makes it necessary for us to be sure to resolve any doubt towards including articles that might make us look bad. Excluding them makes us look even worse. DGG (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's now substantial and well-referenced enough that wanting to delete it is pretty much indefensible. "I don't like it" is not a basis for deletion. Languagehat (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is there a page on criticism on wikipedia? It should probably even be linked from such a page. -- Kju (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps it failed WP:WEB when this was initially nominated for deletion, but that certainly is not the case now.  RFerreira (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Of 9 Sources, only 1 major source, which features a superbly trivial mention, consisting of nothing but a passing mention without even defining the site. The only articles actually dedicated to the site are an averagely notable article and a foreign language article  that while i can't confirm the importance of, makes itself the only serious source, and then only if it is a major source. Another 4 of the sources  are completely unacceptable as sources of it's Notability, one being completely trivial and the other 3 being the actual site itself. The final two sites  don't even mention Deletionpedia, though one  uses the term Deletopedia at the last moment, while the content is dedicated to Wikipedia. I don't believe there to be any serious non-trivial sources, and I hope the closing Admin isn't swayed by numbers considering at least 6 of the keeps I read above this either provided no reasoning or were in somewhat bad faith. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — as much as I don't like it, it meets the WP:GNG for having several reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's two, two reliable sources. So we're done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources. WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By major, I mean major. WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did explain. WP:N calls for non-trivial, not "major" as you yourself observed. They have very different meanings. Non-trivial, is a low-burden. Major is a large burden. See the difference? (Oh and incidentally, while were discussing what WP:N says, the language of the sources is generally irrelevant. Whether we can find sources in English has no bearing on the matter). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Seems to have enough references to establish notability.
 * keep per JoshuaZ - reliable sources met; WP:WEB met --Matilda talk 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:N, is informative and is worthy of notice. Moreover, it is past being a Start or Stub article. It is also mentioned in international news such as the dutch article previously mentioned and in the German Press--Bob (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That article appears to be almost completely a translation of The Industry Standard article. The only addition is that they explain that fancruft ("Fanmaterial" in German) is material that isn't offically part of the fictional universe (there may be a mistranslation here either on my part or on the article in question since that seems to confuse fancruft with fanon or possibly other issues). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point being?? Many newspapers/media outlets use text ad verbatim from sources such as AP, AFP and Reuters and lesser ones such as IS. The fact that it is being picked up and reposted lends to the WP:N. --Bob (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it means that it is difficult to count it as a separate independent reliable source from the Industry Standard article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I don't think keeping this article alive will hurt Wikipedia, but trying to suppress it certainly will. If WP (-defenders) can't stand some criticism (and by now way I think the site deletionpedia is criticism in itself), 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. The reason why I estimate the notability of the site is because the deletion policy is a major soft spot in WP and many people have strong feelings about it. Therefore this morgue deserves an artivle in WP. - 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... I'm also sure that quite soon similar sites will appear for other languages in WP thus also increasing the notability of it. Matthiku (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to suppress anything. The site itself will go on no matter what we decide here. The question is as to whether the site is notable enough to merit an article about it on Wikipedia. This suppression argument is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because...? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's be honest, this article really belongs on Deletionpedia.--Pushsense (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We are being honest. Do you have any actual reasons to back up your opinion? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is enough significant coverage here to establish notability, with more coverage in the last couple of hours here - due to this AFD and here. While not enough on it's own combined with the coverage already in the article I think this more than establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage of this website has spread rapidly in the last 24 hours and will only continue to do so. T0lk (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It may fail WP:WEB but has garnered enough media coverage to make it notable (partially thanks to the irony of this deletion nomination). -Nv8200p talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe that is ironic. I'd gt a laugh out of that, care to show me a Verifiable source discussing the Article because of this AfD? Infact, show me any more sources than the minimal few already on the page? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that this is an apropo use of WP:IAR. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free online encyclopedia.  The encyclopedia is greatly improved by the fact that the revision history is available and all content contributed to an article is present in some form.  It allows future editors to build on the work of previous editors, even when the contributions in past edits were not yet acceptable for front-end content.  Furthermore, editors are accountable for the changes they make.  This accountability and preservation of content is not present with deleted articles.  Deletionpedia could fill this need, or it could become a catalyst for change, but it can't do either without building a strong link with Wikipedia.  This article is the first step in that direction.  The consensus appears to be that it improves the wiki.--128.6.210.119 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the snowball has grown large enough to be noteworthy. Ezratrumpet (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but steal their thunder by closing as many AfDs as keep from here on out! J  We do not want to risk them having more articles than us, lest they actually become the comprehensive encyclopedia we allegedly aspire to be… --172.129.17.196 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article would not have been considered actionable via WP:AfD if it weren't Wikipedia-related. On the balance of fact available, it was borderline notable before, and the act of nominating it for AfD has taken the "borderline" off the "notable". Like rain on your wedding day. — 2008-09-20 20:52Z
 * Um..... not so much. I don't get it, what makes you (all of you) think anyone here thinks that it should be deleted because it is "Wikipedia related"? I dont see a single delete comment expressing that view, there are a few comments on the irony of the situtaion but nothing more, it seems this article has been turned into a straw man for deletionist bashing. The article was originally nominated for deletion because the total reliable sourceing out there amounted to one article and then another four sentance mention. Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted. In fact I think what is hapenning here is the opposite of what you are alleging, it is probably because that it is Wikipedia related that so many 'keep' !votes are coming out, because, as I said before the particular irony of the AfD has every one up in an anti-deletionist blood frenzy. - Icewedge (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you give examples of "Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted"? Mdwh (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:WEB requirements of two non-trivial independent sources. There is no requirement for being "major". Mdwh (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, Deletionpadia is an excellent repository of pages, many of which lasted for extremely long periods of time, with many, many edits before they were deleted. Also, both the site is self, and other sources that mention it (even if in passing) make it notable enough for inclusion. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's borderline, to be sure, but it's gotten enough mention to be borderline, and yes, quite frankly I think we should strive to err on the side of inclusion when it is material that is critical of Wikipedia. I am confident that the world will find Deletionpedia to be far less useful and interesting than (say) Conservapedia once the novelty of the idea wears off and people actually start reading the "content." We can always revisit the issue in six months or so. Right now, deleting this article smacks of bias. Caesar's wife and so forth. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Examination of the sources
Lets go over the sources on this article, (the numbering here referrs to the sources by number as they were on this revision.) So in summary the combined relevant reliable sourcing of this article is one medium size article and one two small mentions; 4 paragraphs and one sentence in total. Face it folks (and sock puppets, SPA’s, ect.), This does not meet WP:GNG. - Icewedge (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A page on the website itself, not only is a SPS but it is an SPS on a Wiki. Entirley unreliable source, invalid for notability.
 * 2) same as above. Invalid for notability.
 * 3) Same as above. Invalid for notability.
 * 4) This article has exactly one sentence about deletionpedia: "Still, even deleted articles survive, on Deletionpedia: 50,000 and counting.", nothing more. A single sentance is not in depth by any possible definition. Invalid for notability.
 * 5) This article actually does appear to be legit.
 * 6) A slashdot discussion, web forums are not reliable sources by any definition. Invalid for notability.
 * 7) This article is actually about the topic... but it is only one paragraph long. One paragraph is not the kind of "in-depth source" referred to at WP:GNG.
 * 8) This article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia at all. Invalid for notability.
 * 9) Same as above; this article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia. Invalid for notability.
 * I'm going to have to disagree with some aspects of your analysis. Note that the Slashdot piece has a few sentences before the forum discussion (I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source but it is worth noting). In the next case, the article in De Telegraaf, a long paragraph devoted to a specific topic is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. So we have two reliable independent, non-trivial sources. That meets WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted. Now about WP:N, it states that "sources [should] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content", is four sentances an in detail discussion of the subject? - Icewedge (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source". TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. - Icewedge (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I agree that the Slashdot matter is minimally helpful. (We could have a discussion that about whether the editorial selection by slashdot makes the comments selected as the leads somehow more reliable but that's iffy at best). As to the telegraaf piece, the standard needed is non-trivial, which it meets. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2 news sources, plus, few more already sourced in the article -- more than enough for inclusion, IMHO. In addition, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, this is interesting. The most vocal people speaking in favor for deletion of the article keep telling that the reason is not that they dislike the subject in question but that they just believe the article fails the guidelines. It seems that a majority of commentors feel otherwise which now causes that the people in favor for deletion go through lengths arguing and explaining why the latter people are wrong and only they are right. Also they choose to diffame the other commentors as sock puppets, SPA etc. For me thats a sure sign that its not about the compliance of the article to the guidelines but about a article which some people want to suppress. While i understand that this is not a majority vote as noted on top, said people should probably accept if a very clear majority don't feel the same way as them instead of keeping arguing and answering to votes in favor to keep the article and so on. This certainly looks like some people fighting a holy war and not just discussing if the article mets the guidelines. My 2ct. -- Kju (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (not a sock puppet or spa)
 * I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... see my poor edit history and lack of interest for huge periods of time... and I simply don't believe that 1 useable source of notability is grounds for inclusion. More importantly, going around assuming other people's position just because they put forward stronger arguments instead of repeating "It has serious reliable sources" over and over and over and over again, could be considered somewaht rude. No one has made claims to not liking it, and i'm personally somewhat offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ' I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... '... ' offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article '
 * Just out of curiosity, if you don't care about Wikipedia, nor about this specific article, why you bother writing here? I write here because I do care about Wikipedia. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we all need to keep generalisations out of it. Not all delete "voters" are doing it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons nor are all keep voters doing it by making accusations of bad faith. Generalisations don't help the article, this discussion, or wikipedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm in favor of keeping this article and frankly I don't see any evidence to back up the claims that people who want this deleted are at all calling for deletion out of some dislike for deletionpedia or what it stands for. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note There's another source which is now active: in German. It discusses briefly Deletionpedia and mentions a few additional examples of articles which were deleted and migrated over. It also connects Deletionpedia to other related issues such as Wikiscanner although what connection they are trying to make is not clear to me. Possibly someone with better language skills can figure that out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After a short introduction of Deletionpedia the article talks about the repeated problems with manipulation of wikipedia articles, names manipulated articles like one about the CEO of a swiss bank which was cleaned up from a bank's IP and finally mentions wikiscanner. -- 80.139.2.106 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (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.