Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lintilla (chat site)


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lintilla (chat site)
Non notable chat site. See also Planes of existence (chat site).


 * 1) *Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I said with the Planes of existence site, this was equally as notable as Planes of Existence, so if you want to delete POE for lack of notoriety, then you must also delete this one. I am glad at least that you have clarified what you consider to be the definition of notoriety.  Glad that you think that the first and most successful of something is non-notable.  LOL.  I'd *really* like to have a look at what the qualifications for notoriety are someday. 203.122.225.241 08:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) **Here you go: WP:WEB. Delete thereby. Next! --Last Malthusian 10:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles describing websites should contain information that makes them useful works of reference. For example, is the site important historically?. Therefore, according to WP:WEB it has to be an automatic strong keep.  LOL.
 * 1) *Delete. Non-notable. *drew 14:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Keep My notes are on Articles for deletion/Planes of existence (chat site), but basically I think that talkers are culturally significant (not greatly, but still somewhat significant) and that Lintilla apparently was significant to the talker community. Piquan 09:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *Keep as per WP:WEB. Zordrac 13:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) *Keep as notable. Turnstep 17:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment this Vfd, as well as the Vfd for Articles for deletion/Planes of existence (chat site) have been used by Jeffrey O. Gustafson as a veiled attempt at personal attacks against me, including the latest edit. It says on my user page who I am, and I had not previously voted on this.  There is no puppetting going on.  Nor is Piquan a puppet.  I would request that Jeffrey O. Gustafson please apologise and cease the animosity.  Thank you.  Zordrac 20:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, you (accidently) admit on my talk page to being a puppet of the anon (not Piquan, who seems to be legit). Furthermore, you should not accuse anyone of personal attacks especially when I have done no such thing.  I am completely open about my contributions and admin actions.  Go ahead, look for a personal attack against you, and then please bring it up on the Administrator's noticeboard or any other appropriate venue.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not "accidentally" admit anything. I have always been open with things.  I merely created an account to avoid confusion, as I said immediately on creation.  This is not a sock puppet and you have falsely accused me of this.  I had not voted on this page yet, and felt that a vote from an account would have more validity.  On the other page, I do apologise as I had not realised that I had previously voted.  There was no attempt to lie or hide anything.  As for you saying that I am falsely accusing you of personal attacks - you are at minimum equally guilty, as you have falsely accused me of being a sock puppet.  Whether that in itself constitutes a personal attack is debatable, but that, combined with you falsely accusing me of creating non notable articles, and deleting them 30 seconds after creation is, in my opinion, an example of a personal attack.  If you do not mean it to be taken that way, then please apologise and resume good behaviour.  I deleted your nonsense post on my user page, and have removed your false accusations about sock puppetry. Zordrac 21:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - Right now, I'm inclined to delete all of this for one reason: The articles lack any reliable sources. There are lots of accusations and lots of chat-politicking, but nothing that indicates where that information came from. This suggests original research on the part of the article writer, which is not allowed. Remove the unverified bits and you're left with... that this was an adult chat site that people used. If the author can rewrite and source the article, I'll consider keeping on the merits. FCYTravis 23:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lacks reliable sources? Did you not follow links? Zordrac 23:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. One person's POV from a personal Web site is not a reliable source. From WP:RS - "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." From WP:V - "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website... Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia." FCYTravis 23:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you're never going to get a better link than that over this kind of topic. Do you want me to link to the 1,000 other places that refer to this link?  I imagine that they are mostly personal web sites as well.  I can't imagine this ever being in a newspaper, with this kind of thing.  So I don't think that WP:V is relevant with this kind of topic. If you dispute notoriety, sure.  Would it appease you if I linked to other places that talk about or reference that web site as proven fact? Zordrac 00:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:V is *always* relevant. If you'll notice, it's an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles on topics which cannot be properly sourced should not be included in the encyclopedia. I have an issue with articles making unsourced and unsubstantiated accusations of hacking, invasion of privacy, etc. FCYTravis 00:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just adding to this. That page was *NOT* a personal web site.  It was not a homepage.  It is an official business web site. I believe that these can be referenced. Zordrac 00:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why WP:V has been brought up. The verifiability of something seems to be under challenge, but I'm not sure.  If the verifiability of the site's existence is under scrutiny, then I'd say that it's pretty silly, and would question the existence of the Earth.  If the verifiability of the content is under scrutiny, then I think there's a little better case, but that it's still not very good.  The site's FAQ can reasonably be considered an expert source on its own content.  If the verifiability of the history is under debate, then I'm fine with debating that. Piquan 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Just summing that up there. 1) It is not a personal homepage - it is a business page, therefore meets the criteria for WP:V. 2) There are no accusations being made. The word "allegedly" is used. 3) They are not unsubstantiated or unsourced, as they have been correctly referenced.

I think that you are either misunderstanding or misusing wikipedia policy in relation to this article. Zordrac 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Say, if I've been accused of being a puppet, I missed it. Nuts; I'd want to archive my first puppet accusation. Can somebody put it on my talk page? Piquan 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable niche talker, nearly dead now. --Zetawoof 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not really notable, unverified, a real mess. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments: What's not verified? Please elaborate on that assertion. There are links there, even quotes, that verify every statement made.  If you object to one part, please state which part you think is not verified.  And why is it a mess? Zordrac 00:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but Merge. Please.  For better or worse, User:Zordrac has put much effort into an attempt at encyclopedic record of this genre of internet communication.  Lintilla itself has an Alexa of 30k+, still, even though it is well past its heyday.  WP:V is silly here, go read the website.  Disuptes of encyclopedic value are warrented.  However, talkers as a whole deserve attention.  Much, if not most, of the recently developed talker content should likely be merged.  I don't think that individal talkers deserve an article any more than legendary irc channels do, but they do deserve mention.  Please leave alone as no consensus, and add a merge tag if feeling ambitious. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 07:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep historical communities are typically recorded in an encyclopedia long after they are little more then oddities to the general public Falerin 14:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have made the point of Alexa being relevant only when discussing web sites. This is a talker, not a web site.  Most talkers do not have web sites attached, and if they do, it is only just so that you can link to the talker from there.  There are a handful of talkers that did have active web sites - like Crossroads (chat site) at least used to, and there are a few others, but most simply don't.  That Crystal Palace (chat site) one doesn't even have a web site anymore (other than an old one which is no longer active), and a lot of them don't.  If you look at old talker lists, you are talking about 1 in 3 that had their own web site, maybe 1 in 20 that actually used it as anything other than a link to their talker.  Lintilla did (at least when they last updated it in 1999) have some kind of an active web site.  But not anymore.  That's 6 years since they last updated it. Oh and not to mention that when Lintilla was first created, there was no such thing as the WorldWideWeb (that's how old it is).  At least, it wasn't commonly available, and wasn't available where the talker was located. Zordrac 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What to do if this is deleted
As this is important historically, I think that perhaps it should be merged with Sleepy's multiple worlds and Fantasia's multiple worlds in to an article like Multiple worlds, since the 3 of them are all based around the same thing (in some ways, they were all still lintilla, just by other names - I bet that Douglas Adams would have got a kick out of knowing that all that happened!) Since Sleepy's multiple worlds, according to Alexa's rankings, is the 3rd most popular talker in the world at the moment, and that is a spin off of lintilla, I think that we have justification to keep this in some form. Alexa is generally regarded as an accurate source, and we can firmly establish that sleepy's was definitely a spin off of lintilla, henceforth this must remain in some form. There may be some debate however about whether it needs to exist as a page in its own right. Zordrac 15:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Current tally
The current tally is 5 in favour of keep, 6 in favour of delete, with 1 unsure. Zordrac 16:51, 28 November 2005 (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.