Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia (4th nomination)


 * 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The result was speedy keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not much seems to have changed since the last three AfDs. Would have speedied under WP:G4 if not for the amount of time that had passed. Septrillion (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I will note that the article is not very much 'not' the same as what it was as of March 21, 2017, when the last AfD was closed. Master of Time   ( talk ) 00:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How so? Septrillion (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For one, the article is ten times larger than it was at the last AfD. Far more sources (reliable or not) as well. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the question! Are they reliable? Septrillion (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused! You used a double negative. Are you saying that it is or is not the same? Septrillion (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying! Septrillion (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note. The editor who re-created the page was indeffed. The editor who moved it to a draft after working on it in a sandbox was C933103. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Therefore? Septrillion (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should be notified. I did not re-create the page. C933103 moved it to a draft page and eventually it was moved to mainspace. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have given an explanation here. Linking to keep the thread. Septrillion (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the article points out that Everipedia is the largest English language encyclopedia, which is surely enough reason to establish notability. Vorbee (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You or I could create an even bigger encyclopedia tomorrow merely by setting up a website that copies everything in Everipedia, and adds one extra page not already in there. The issue is that "encyclopedia" is defined overly broadly. By these standards, one could say that the biggest encyclopedia is actually Google. bd2412  T 13:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs a source review lots of low-quality refspamming, questionable Bitcoin blogs etc. If it were cut down to the facts that made it to high-quality RSes, it'd be quite a short article about (1) an ICO (2) Larry Sanger's involvement being the core of the coverage - a lot of it entirely hinges on Sanger, rather than anything about Everipedia itself - (3) that one article exploring what a terrible encyclopedia it is. There's such a chaff of garbage here, and it's really clearly promotional content in support of the ICO - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numberwang!  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting, I've never seen such a significant percentage of the sources mentioned on an article exist to talk about how the subject of that article isn't reliable. There's nothing preventing negative coverage still counting, afaik, but it's an unusual route to demonstrate notability. All publicity is good publicity? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that somehow, what the sources think of the site (that it's terrible) never quite makes it into the article. Hence the ad tag - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2018 (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.