Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexipedia


 * 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 keep. John254 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lexipedia

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

existance not verifiable in 3rd party sources. Generic redistribution of Wikipedia does not usually merit an article. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Enless you can cite a policy they violate. I think your objection is vague. TonyTheTiger 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Existence not verifiable in 3rd party sources" is not very vague and is pretty clearly saying it falls afoul of WP:RS, which invokes ideas about WP:V and WP:NOR. I have no opinion yet, but it seems pretty clear those are the guidelines/policies being cited... GassyGuy 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - If this is a delete, ya better remove TomeRaider too. While you are at it, you may need to remove about 50% of all Computer/Software/Technology articles, as most of them are mainly defined by their websites or their own PR generated releases. Frankly, I think many of the definitions for "what is notable" need to be re-written for many specific niche areas, and technology is one of them. For that matter, I suspect the entire AfD system here is of questionable utility anymore, seeing as it seems to be mostly used by a few self-appointed guardians of the temple to keep everyone else out. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's also important to keep in mind that the notability guidelines were created with the intent that Wikipedia would be a general interest encyclopaedia? Surely other wikis can be and are being developed for specific niche areas. Still no opinion on this article, but this opinion would lead me more towards delete as it appears to be "Fails guidelines, but I disagree with them, so let it stay" GassyGuy 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, existence verified in Google News Archive results including the Wall Street Journal (behind paywall) and WebProNews (trivial mention, tho). Reviews here[] are about as good as it gets for PDA software. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 22 January 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.