Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (2nd 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 Keep Nacon kantari  04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia
This article was previously deleted at AfD, and had its deletion confirmed at a DRV in July. A new DRV consensus just overturned the deletion, in light of new evidence: the wiki-site's frequent mentioning on ABC. Please consult the new DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Lost (TV series) Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's bad enough that the Motion of Confidence page now seems to have fictional mentions of occurences of Motions of Confidence, I notice that there is even a Wikipedia article on Darth Vader - what next! Maybe there needs to be a Fictionopedia seperately - probably already is.--Lord of the Isles 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Lost (TV series). According to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites there has been some opposition to even having Lostpedia as a link from Lost (TV series). But if Lostpedia were not even worthy about being mentioned as a link in an article about the subject it relates to, how could that justify making it a separate Wikipedia article of its own? There should be a compromise in which Lostpedia gets mentioned in Lost (TV series), because the Lostpedia wiki would mainly be of interest or use to people who are looking for more information and/or speculation about the series. --Metropolitan90 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my recommendation to delete in order to avoid a "no consensus keep" result. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)


 *  Strong Delete  - Wikipedia really does not need this sort of blatant advertising, it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)


 * Lostpedia fails WP:WEB:


 * “The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” – So far they’ve only really been able to post “blogs” and point 1.1.2 = Fail.
 * “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – No awards cited so = Fail.


 * Lostpedia fails WP:EL:
 * “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft.
 * “Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” – Blatant fail.
 * “A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.” – Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?
 * “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – 3 adverts are pretty objectionable, imho, (left, under content, both Google, and bottom selling hosting.)
 * “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE.
 * “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered.


 * The behaviour of their sysops attempting to get a link to articles and even creating spam articles does not settle well with me, furthermore the “if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” approach by filling retaliatory AfDs, Prods and Speedy Delete requests was just patently pathetic imo (see history for Memory Alpha). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * MatthewFenton, I'm guessing you're in favor of deleting the article. If so, the strike-through on your recommendation is confusing. It makes it look like you no longer support deletion. If this is not your intent, you might want to fix that. --Loqi T. 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've striked it out while i review the situation, but bh im warming to the article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per MatthewFenton. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete waste of space. S  e rgeantBolt (t,c) 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or else delete I don't see how this is significant enough for its own article. Any notability comes from the TV show. Bwithh 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete again per MatthewFenton. At least M&R to Lost (TV series). The current article is entirely dedicated to justifying its own existence by citing sources mentioning the site, and will never become encyclopaedic. Lostpedia fans have repeatedly acted in bad faith (as noted by MatthewFenton), which is not very impressive. --N Shar 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, but I don't see why Lostpedia should be deleted and Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, for examples, shouldn't be kept. Besides, the extensive attempts to find problem with Lostpedia seem more like reaching than genuine concerns.  Really, these kinds of frivolous complaints do not improve your arguments. CSS incompatible??  Where?  What pages?  Copyrights of others?  Are you kidding?  Lostpedia isn't a site about software piracy (Astalavista) or movies (IsoHunt).  3 Advertisements objectionable?  CNN.com has just as many.  The nytimes.com page has even more.  I don't know about the behavior of the sysops there, but there is certainly plenty of verifiable information on the site, and even if there is fan speculation, it is often identified as such, so it's not a problem.  Besides, it's not like there isn't published works on Lost(Amazon for example, has at least 3 Unofficial Guides that I could find without looking hard), and it's not a no-name unknown show.  So, there are sources for it as well.   But seriously, it seems to me that there is some serious personal animus here.  That's a concern that tends to make me doubt the fairness of this proposal.  Seems to me that this is a conflic that needs to be resolved more than this article needs to be deleted.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)


 * Delete or merge into the main article as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say merge in the main lost article but some of the editors over there constantly delete it. If Wookiepedia deserves an article with only the scifi.com site of the week as a reference, lostpedia also deserves an article.--Peephole 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reason the editors at Lost (TV series) delete links to Lostpedia is, according to this discussion, because of all the fancruft. In a straw-poll-like discussion, the consensus seems to have been that Lostpedia does not deserve its own article, and possibly does not even deserve a link from the main Lost article. In that case, why keep? Wouldn't it make more sense to say delete? --N Shar 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment All the fancruft is hardly an argument. Fancruft is not suitable for wikipedia, yes. But lostpedia is not wikipedia and fancruft should not withhold wikipedia from recognising lostpedia as a notable website. --Peephole 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it as an argument to delete. I meant it, in fact, as the opposite: the "gatekeepers" of the Lost (TV series) article are probably making a mistake by not including a link. Therefore, merge and redirect could be a viable option. --N Shar 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As MatthewFenton notes above, there is a long history here (largely by people who otherwise participate either very little or not at all in WP) of trying to get a link to Lostpedia on WP, in any way, shape, or form, including bad faith edits and behavior. Especially given the economic aspects (i.e., WP-driven traffic boosting a site's ad revenue, probably by thousands of dollars a year), we have to be very careful about providing such links.  There are dozens of Lost-related fansites, too, so this is a slippery slope. See, for example, the LostCasts AfD at Articles for deletion/LostCasts. -- PKtm 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment According to that reasoning we should delete the links to all sites with ads and not link to any sites because it might increase visitors or leads to a "slippery slope". Lostpedia is an honest attempt at building a Lost encyclopedia, not a money making scheme and it certainly doesn't need wikipedia to get visitors. Also, the comments about editors who support inclusion of lostpedia on wikipedia are bordering on personal attacks. I'd suggest you would withold from making such comments.--Peephole 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Sorry, I won't accept that. The facts (specifically, the WP edit non-history of many of the people voting here for Lostpedia inclusion) speak for themselves, and are well documented in the very lengthy discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites, which this discussion is threatening to repeat once again, with the same people voting in the same way. And sure, revenue considerations have to be brought into this mix. WP is a powerful traffic driver.  The bar of notability has to be kept high; we can't have a site considered notable merely because it has 7000 users, especially when there are very considerable quality concerns about its information and approaches. -- PKtm 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Whilst users critique the argument that Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha both have articles, it is a valid point to make, as these articles supposedly passed WP:WEB on the virtue of an article in Sci-fi.com - which Lostpedia has along with much more media coverage to boot. Having been officially recognised by the show producers and company itself on numerous occassions also gives Lostpedia strong notability, as does the response by ABC to set up their own Lost Wiki (undoubtedly in response to the exponential growth the site Lostpedia has experienced in but a year). Thus, Lostpedia deserves to have its own article. And in response to "the slippery slope" I see no real precedence for this, as not to reiterate using the old examples, but allowing other Wikis to have articles did not for instance cause a huge precedent for Star Wars and Star Trek sites being allowed to stay articles on the WP database to my knowledge --Nickb123 3rd 18:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * — Possible single purpose account: Nickb123_3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leflyman (talk • contribs)


 * Keep - Wikipedia has had over 30,000,000 page views, which makes it one of the most visited non Mediawiki's on the web.
 * Lostpedia meets WP:WEB:
 * “The website has a list of Media Coverage.
 * “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – Wikipedia has won Sci-Fi's site of the week.

Lostpedia meeting WP:EL:
 * “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Precident has been set via Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia's entries. It is a far more detailed resource than the LOST article here.
 * “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – Adverts are subtle, more subtle than for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia ones, where precident has been set. Adverts are solely used to cover the costs of the site, which are greater than the advertising revenue.
 * “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses same CSS as a standard Mediawiki installation.
 * “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Lostpedia licenses all images with correct license information to avoid violations of copyright infrigement in the United States. --Plkrtn 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Note: Above user has been involved in two bad faith "retailiatory" AfD nominations for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia)-- LeflymanTalk 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't have to look long to find this image; it was on the front page of Lostpedia. The image is described as "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media." It is also stated that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material ... [conditions removed] ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law" (emphasis mine). However, a high-resolution version of the image is provided! This is not good copyright policy. On the other hand, this is really a straw man. The question is whether the site is notable enough for its own article, not whether it can be linked to from Wikipedia. --N Shar 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to this, Wikipedia itself is no greater in this respect --Nickb123 3rd 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep – Consensus in DRV determined that “Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability”; this AFD is the formal procedure that follows the overturning of its deletion in the DRV.


 * NOTE: remaining interpersonal issues among some users voting “strongly” for delete:
 * The first "Strong Delete" vote above is made by a user with a long-time history against Lostpedia, and was banned from Lostpedia for making bad-faith edits-- his opinion is clearly biased from reasons external to WP. Similar editors have likely been recruited by this editor (and/or have their own pre-existing polarized biases) for voting; note the vote histories and comments on past afds on this article, as well as at the main article Lost (TV series), for a list of these editors; these include Seargeantbolt ("Speedy Delete") and pktm ("Strong delete").
 * Also quoting from the closing comments of the DRV:
 *  "So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability.(snip) 
 * "Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards." --Out-of-focus 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * *"Overturn. I believe this meets WP:WEB and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis." Angela 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (End quotes from DRV)
 * In summary, Keep, in accordance with the consensus of the DRV. --Santaduck 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)
 * (End quotes from DRV)
 * In summary, Keep, in accordance with the consensus of the DRV. --Santaduck 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)
 * discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)


 * Keep - It is notable. Note review in Wired News here: and the list maintained here . If the final decision is to merge, it should be merged with Lost Experience as that is where much of the notablitly is from. Although no longer part of WP:WEB standards, check the Alexa rankings for Lospedia  here. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: what Nick said.--Captain Insano 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:WEB under criteria #1. Site was used by official representatives of The Lost Experience to distribute an official clue/glyph. Additional References/notes:
 * July 5, 2006 - Site of the Week - by: Ken Newquist of SciFi.com
 * June 20, 2006 - It's not on television, but I'm still 'Lost' - by: Liz Kohman of St. Cloud Times
 * May 2, 2006 - Still Lost? - by: Jason Deans of Guardian Unlimited
 * Was listed in the Official Lost magazine (Issue 6, Page 73)
 * www.lostpedia.com Ridiculously comprehensive encyclopedia of all things Lost. Uses the open source wiki system so is constantly updated.
 * In an article discussing the growth of the wikipedia software, Lostpedia was featured out of thousands of other wikis.
 * Please also see Wikipedia's list of wikis for additional precedent on articles for wiki's hosted outside of Wikipedia. That article contains only links to wikis that with their own entry in Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional note: Some of the statements to notability are not currently noted on the article page, as it was protected/speedy deleted while being written.  It should also be noted that MatthewFenton seems to have a vendetta against Lostpedia, submitting a Speedy Deletion (overturned), and adding lostpedia.com to the SPAM blacklist (overturned).  He is currently banned from editing Lostpedia, which could be the source of his frustrations.  --Jabrwocky7 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Note: Above user initiated the Lostpedia article (as his first edit) and was responsible for a WP:POINT AfD nomination of Wookiepedia.)-- LeflymanTalk 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I see a whole lot of hand waving about "we have other wikis, so we should have this one too." Wrong. A lot of those articles are kind of crappy upon review, and I'd probably express an opinion to delete those if they were to come to AfD; however, that said, the existence of some uncited messes doesn't justify the existence of other uncited messes. We shouldn't lower our standards for inclusion just because some articles inexplicably get kept. This one fails WP:WEB and has very little about it verifiable by reliable sources. GassyGuy 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * GassyGuy, did you read the "new DRV consensus"? That article refers to some of the issues you raise. --Santaduck 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. GassyGuy 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG Keep Why this had a listing on AfD to begin with is puzzling to me...it's a verifiable internet webpage that's growing exponentially. I think several people have some biases towards wiki's and want this one to not exist.  All of the information can't be on Wikipedia, because it would be deemed non-notable or an indiscriminate collection of information...so Lostpedia is a perfect place for it...and it deserves its own article on here, as this is a general purpose encyclopedia.--MonkBirdDuke 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article had and has COI issues and does not demonstrate that it meets WP:WEB. A smerge to Lost Experience (which is a passable imitation of a link-farm in need of cleanup) might be reasonable, but that could have been done at any time; no need for DRV or YAAfD. But that wouldn't be as effective as free advertising, would it ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - i somehow get an overwhelming impression just from reading the upper part of this AfD that some users seem to be simply holding some kind of grudge against it. I don't see Lostpedia as obviously failing either WP:WEB or WP:EL, and i especially don't see how lostpedia fails them any worse than Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha. Talking about which, i don't see how "unverified fancruft" has anything to do with this. Do people even realize what fancruft means? The opening line of WP:CRUFT explains it quite well "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". There's nothing wrong with Fancruft, it's not bad. It's just not fit for an encyclopedia. But fansites by definition exist to serve the 'small population of enthusiastic fans'. So-called "Fancruft" is exactly the kind of external sites are supposed to provide, since it's information that's not appropriate on our own encyclopedia. Arguments like this "Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" is circular. Because even if someone independant added links to lostpedia in wikipedia articles, there is no way to prove who is adding links because they think it's a good idea, and who is adding links because they're affiliated with lostpedia. At the end, it just comes down to the bad faith assumption of "you're adding links to lostpedia, you must be from lospedia and trying to advertise". --`/aksha 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)


 * Strong Delete consensus has consistently been that website is not independently notable despite claims to the contrary and WP:POINT violations. Eluchil404 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ABSTAIN Full disclosure - I edit on Lostpedia and haven't been on wikipedia that long, so I don't feel it's appropriate that I vote on this. However, a number of factual inaccuracies have been posted (as well as opinions posing as facts) here that I'd like to correct, many of them by Matthew Fenton.  I apologize in advance for the length of this.
 * WP:WEB:
 * "So far they’ve only really been able to post 'blogs'" Untrue as shown by lostpedia's media coverage page [].  References include businessweek, newsday, and wired news (those aren't "trivial" sources, are they?).  It is true that there are blogs listed as well, these include ones hosted by sources like the Chicago Tribune, USA today, and the guardian, in most cases written by the TV critic or pop culture columnist for that publication.
 * "No awards cited" SciFi weekly site of the week[]. For comparison, this is the only reference provided by Wookieepedia, which has its own page.  It should be noted that WP:WEB says that only one of the three criteria needs to be met to merit inclusion.
 * WP:EL
 * "Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft"
 * A comparison of the two sites shows this to be wrong. For a specific example, compare the wikipedia page Lost Experience with the Lostpedia page for the same topic [].  The wikipedia page is fairly detailed, but it is mostly highlights, while the lostpedia version (as far as I can tell) documents it in enough detail that a reader could access every bit of content in the lost experience.  This was particularly significant during the online game, as people trying to figure out the puzzles were able to use Lostpedia as a repository of game information while someone referring only to wikipedia wouldn't have sufficient information to solve the puzzles.
 * Trying to write off Lostpedia as "unverifiable fan cruft" seems like a circular argument to me. It's not a legit site because it has nothing unique beyond fancruft, but the info that goes beyond what wikipedia has is defined as fancruft because it is on a site that's not legit.  The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases.  And while "cruft" is generally frowned upon on wikipedia (while there's still a fair amount on wiki's Lost pages), wiki policy doesn't list it as a reason for excluding links to external sites.
 * “Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” I'm not sure what you consider factually inaccurate or unverified.  The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable or inaccurate than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases, and the information can be verified by watching the show.  Obviously, the information on a site operated using wiki principles will never be 100% correct or verified, as I'm sure wikipedia editors will readily admit, but I'd argue the vast majority of information on Lostpedia is accurate, and as inaccurate info is found, it is corrected.  Lostpedia does contain fan speculation, but it is clearly marked and kept separate from the factual information.  Such speculation is certainly not inappropriate for a show that actively encourages it, and as long as it as it is presented as opinion and not fact, I don't consider it unverified or original research, not any more than a movie data site would be disqualified for containing user reviews in addition to factual info.
 * "their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" In fact, independent parties have added links to lostpedia, here's an example from a user who is a longtime wikipedia editor, doesn't mainly edit Lost articles, and as far as I can tell, isn't a lostpedia participant [].  This link was deleted with the reason given being "rm spam" [] even though that was clearly not the intent when it was posted, evidence of bad faith editing on the part of MatthewFenton.  From what I've seen (and obviously, I admit it's difficult if even possible to find every instance where links to lostpedia have been added) it's entirely possible that links to lostpedia are automatically assumed to be bad faith "spam" edits, whether they are or not.  Above is certainly one example of that happening.
 * I'd also like to see a reference to where the owner of Lostpedia has added a link to it. If this has happened, I'd agree that this is a neutrality violation.  However, in the case of a site that is open to public contribution, it seems likely that many people who would find the site notable could choose to participate in it themselves, thus disqualifying themselves from writing about the site.
 * Also on the topic of neutrality, if it is a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to add links to it, I'd argue that it's also a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to delete links to it as well. Specifically in the case of MatthewFenton, he declared his bad faith intentions on Lostpedia [], immediately began a major edit that would have had an effect on the entire site, without getting any input from other users [], and as a result was banned from the site.  If the opinions and edits of those involved with Lostpedia are to be ignored (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it has been argued), I'd suggest that MatthewFenton should be included in that group.  And after all, if Lostpedia is truly not notable as some argue, wouldn't someone independent remove the link?
 * "adverts are pretty objectionable, imho" Your opinion.  There are quite a few similar sites that have pages on wikipedia that have quite a bit more advertising.  And lostpedia certainly doesn't "primarily exist to sell products or services", especially since the site doesn't sell things at all - looking at the site, I don't find a way to send lostpedia money if I wanted to.
 * "Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE." I just looked at lostpedia and was able to access it just fine with MSIE.  If you're talking about a cosmetic feature not being supported, that doesn't make the site "inaccessible".  If you weren't able to access the site, how were you able to create a user account and edit the site, much less read the site to determine whether it's deserving of inclusion on wikipedia?
 * "Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered." Simply not true.  Since MatthewFenton was at lostpedia and edited there, his recommendations for GDFL and copyright notices were taken, and the images he referenced in his comments there now have GDFL and other copyright notices.  "Unwilling to fix" isn't the same as unwilling to let a brand new user singlehandedly implement a copyright notice policy with no input from the community (particularly one who had made a public declaration of bad faith).
 * “if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” While I frown upon Lostpedia users creating AfDs for other articles in "retaliation", I think an argument can be made for doing that in good faith. Articles like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have been referenced in comparison, and those arguing that Lostpedia doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:EL have made arguments that, when applied to those other pages, those pages fail as well.  In each of these discussions, there have also been wiki editors who have spoken in favor of deleting Lostpedia references, and have favored deleting the two above articles for the same reasons.  If a Lostpedia reference is deleted, and criteria given for the deletion, shouldn't other articles that fall under the same criteria be considered for deletion as well?  The question is simply, should a set of standards be applied to one article but not another?
 * "it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)"
 * Lostpedia sysops don't make money from lostpedia, if any profit is made at all (since obviously hosting a site costs money, and income has to cover expenses first), it would only go to the owner of the site. Such an accusation seems ad hominem and unfounded.  A similar accusation could be made of the editors of the Lost pages on wikipedia - that they have been removing links to Lostpedia because they're worried that traffic there would decrease traffic to wikipedia.  MatthewFenton has also made accusations that Lostpedia engages in google bombing.  Are there facts to back up that accusation?
 * Sorry for the length of this, but I don't want to see a decision like this made based on incorrect (if not intentionally misleading) information. Thanks to all of you who have participated in this discussion - and for those of you have have voted "per MatthewFenton" to be aware that a number of his statements are factually incorrect and that he has shown bias and bad faith in regards to Lostpedia.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep But the article is critically in need of improvement. See the articles about other websites: Salon.com, Television Without Pity, Democratic Underground or Free Republic. Those articles discuss the organizers/founders/owners of the sites, their influence, their strengths and shortcomings, and in all provide some information rather than just being a stub and link like this article. Clearly some people like the show and the Lostpedia, neither of which have ever appealed to me, so perhaps some of them could take the time to write a good article. Edison 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR. As long as we are allowing Memory Alpha (sourced by a trivial mention in "Florida Trend" and another trivial mention in "The Charlotte Observer") and Wookiepedia (sourced by stories on theforce.net and apparently WP:WEB compliant due to the oh so prestigious scifi.com Sci Fi site of the week) I think we've pretty much given up on holding anything to WP:WEB once it becomes obvious that the fanboy "pokemon effect" has taken over to stuff AfDs, complete with petty .  Just give up kids and let the cruft wave sweep you away... and hope that someday we can live in a world where User:Bwithh gets to hear his sweet fanboy howling lullaby.--Isotope23 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not exactly the best reason in the world, but I've heard of it and I believe it to be notable and varifiable. Whether it's a good site, whether the articles any good or any other reasons miss the point. I just wish people (mainly those voting Keep) would stop trying to think that this place is precedent based when voting when it really isn't. Halo 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not precedent based (hence my WP:IAR) and it is also not a vote... :)--Isotope23 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said on DRV, I believe this meets WP:WEB and that it is a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis. Angela. 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or else keep. Merge into Lost (TV series)
 * [disclosure: I have participated heavily in the Lost article's discussion on this topic. I am in no way affiliated with Lostpedia, as some have implied. I have occasionally read Lostpedia as a resource, and have been impressed with its scope. In particular, its unfounded speculation has been a source of some entertainment and insight to me. If competing sites meet or exceed Lostpedia in value and/or notoriety, I'd be prepared to support them in addition to, or instead of, Lostpedia.]
 * In the ongoing side discussion of the Lost article found here, the bulk of the arguments against a link to Lostpedia have been around claims that Wikipedia policy prohibits an external link to Lostpedia in any context. That is, according to some, a mere line item in the External Links section of the Lost article pointing to Lostpedia, would be a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policy. The comments on this AfD page expose such claims as misguided at best.
 * Since this is a discussion on whether to delete an article about Lostpedia, and not about whether to link Lostpedia in the Lost article, I am forced to support keeping the Lostpedia article, if only as a means of notifying Wikipedia readers about a valuable Lost resource. A single link from Wikipedia:Lost(tv) to Lostpedia would satisfy all my concerns about offering potentially valuable outside resources to our readers. Failing that, I'll have to support a separate Lostpedia article, since an internal link could not be so mis-objected to, by some Lost article editors.
 * P.S. Lostpedia does not appear to be hurting for findability. The Google terms "lost wiki" currently turn up these results: Lostpedia, Wikipedia's Lost article, Wikia's Lost section, ABC's Lost wiki offering, and finally a large number of obscure Lost-related sites. --Loqi T. 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well, what can I say? If it's good enough for Matthew Fenton, it's good enough for me. I'm switching my recommendation to an unambiguous keep. In general, I'd rather we include a page that no-one much is interested in, than to exclude a page that someone might be looking for. Not everyone shares this philosophy, or uses the same threshold of notability, but when in doubt, I tend to go with inclusion. Lostpedia seems to meet the notability threshold of more than a few people who know the ropes around here, and this has influenced my evaluation. In addition, if it doesn't get its page this time, we're likely to be right back here the next time it shows up as a news item somewhere; or worse, we might be too sick of the topic to give it another fair consideration for a while. --Loqi T. 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think thats pretty much the perfect closing summary in my opinion of this whole discussion --Nickb123 3rd 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm afraid I can't buy Loqi's sudden "influenced my evaluation" contention, as he's been campaigning for inclusion of Lostpedia in any way shape or form for over three months. The entire discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites was an outgrowth of his repeated promotion and forum shopping for a link to the site. Only two days ago, he went back to delete the excessive canvassing for his proposal which he had spammed 20 user pages with. The very first edit he made on August 8 was to push a Lostpedia link. He's even been commended by Lostpedia's owner for his "passion" in promoting the site. He attempts to imply that he's participated in other AfD discussions, when this is actually the only one in which he's ever been involved. (Oh, and incidentally, the place to put such a revised "Keep" comment is at one's original discussion above, not as a seemingly new "closing" recommendation.)-- LeflymanTalk 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we need to use such acrimonious language, Leflyman? I think everyone knows I want Lostpedia linked from the Lost page. But now I beleive a separate Lostpedia article page is fully appropriate. It's true, as you note, that this is my first AfD participation. So it's only natural that I'd make some mistakes. I guess I was following Matthew's lead [in the proper placement of amended recommendations]. I've moved this thread to its proper place. And please don't criticize me for doing the right thing two days ago. --Loqi T. 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (clarified) Loqi T. 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a puppet. --Loqi T. 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I am now formally retracting all my previous recommendations on the narrow topic of this Afd. This is not because I have changed my views on the topic, it's because I want to signal to whichever administrator ends up tackling this beast that there'll be no trouble form me. I listened with interest, and have said all I care to on this and surrounding pages. With the exception of a few rash comments, which have since been retracted in various forms, I stand by everything I've said on the broader issues over the past three months. I am ready to accept any ruling which comes of this, without friction. Those interested in my final thoughts will find them posted on my personal user page later today. Peace. --Loqi T. 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please this does met our web guidelines so why erase it Yuckfoo 01:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep And just to echo some of the other Lostpedians posting above, the comments by MatthewFenton need to be understood as part of a grudge he has against being disciplined at Lostpedia. As a Lostpedia SysOp, I can guarantee you that we do not want to be linked to generate page views for ad revenue. We want to eliminate a bizarre hypocracy where nearly every other TV show lists notable fansites, while a few self-proclaimed "gatekeepers" insist that the Lost entry be free of fansites. As for the complaints that hardcore Lostpedians do not spend time editing Lost entries at WP, that seems pretty ridiculous - we have our own site to update & maintain, and we've gotten the clear sense from many that we're not welcome. --Jajasoon 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep/merge - doesn't do well per criteria one, two or three - But it does seem to show a strong Alexa.com ranking - higher than memory alpha in the last few weeks. Personally I'd rather see it only mentioned as an external link on the main Lost article but on the other hand it doesn't seem to merit deletion. Megapixie 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Angela. She is sage and a former member of the Wikimedia Foundation board, I trust her input.  Yamaguchi先生 07:01, 24 October 2006
 * Strong Keep, as per Milo H Minderbinder, and my reasons quoted and misattributed above. --Out-of-focus 07:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Matthew and PKtm. I also note the prevalence of apparent meatpuppetry of voting by recently created accounts, those who've never edited a Lost-related article, or may have only interest in inclusion of this particular article. -- LeflymanTalk 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)


 * Delete or Merge into either Lost or the Lost Experience. The article seems light on importance/notability; and while it has some acclaim, it doesn't seem to matter for the article. Only the site's inclusion in "the official ABC show blog" and a podcast are referenced in the article; the paragraph it earned from Wired News, as well as its honor as 1/~150 sites of the week from SciFi.com are only externally linked -- perhaps because they do not provide the article with substantially more notability than already mentioned.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What a long and torturous discussion this is already. My condolences to the admin who finally volunteers to sort this discussion out. My own opinion is that we should delete this page for failure to meet the criteria of WP:WEB. A few allegations were made above and some links provided but none which convince me that this website really qualifies under our generally accepted inclusion criteria. While this site has been mentioned in some reputable sources, not enough of the coverage was primarily about this website. The ones I reviewed were casual mentions in an article on a related but different topic. Being scifi.com's website of the week is a very low standard - not in keeping with my understanding of the intent of that clause of WP:WEB. Rossami (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a valid article providing information on the website. If the website hosted a section of the Lost Experience game this summer then its worth having its own page here. Merging into the main Lost article makes no sense, and deleting it is uncalled for. Spookyadler 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this has not been the primary subject of non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources, and really there is not much to say which is not original research other than that it exists; there is sufficient space on the Lost article to do that. If we prune the article of all original research, we get: Lostpedia is a Wiki about Lost. Who knew?  The rest is 90% vanity and 10% puff.  Guy 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Abstain Lostpedia is a textbook example of a topical wiki. Lostpedia is a 100% community based site.  It's growth has been through the contributions of over 7500 registered editors.  Jimbo Wales even commented on this very issue.   "Wow, well, I looked into it, and read in particular the entire debate at that last url you sent me. What a mess. As you may know, I try not to personally get involved much in detailed content disputes, and in this case, I really don't know enough about tv show linking policies as they are put into practice to know for sure about that. At the same time, I do think that Lostpedia should be listed there, and that in general Wikipedia should do a lot more linking to community-built resources." (Full Disclosure: I started Lostpedia) --Kevincroy 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jimbo did not comment on the existence of this article; he was commenting on whether a link to Lostpedia was appropriate to include on the Lost (TV series) article, but as he acknowledges, he "really [doesn't] know enough about tv show linking policies as they are put into practice". Add'l note: the founder of this AfD's subject should likely have recused himself from pushing for inclusion of his web site, as it is a conflict of interest in such Wikipedia discussions. -- LeflymanTalk 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Kevincroy has disclosed that he is the founder of Lostpedia. That should be sufficient when evaluating his "keep" recommendation, as well as any comments he makes. Recusal has no meaning here. I must say though, that the Jumbo quote doesn't really fit the topic of whether Lostpedia should have an article. --Loqi T. 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have removed my vote.  The comment from Jimbo is related to listing Lostpedia at the Wikipedia.  Maybe you can ask him to clarify his thoughts.  If you want to get the context of his quote read the entry on his talk page --Kevincroy 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. Crossing out a "delete" or "keep" generally shows the person is changing/withdrawing their opinion, which isn't the case. Really, the creater of Lospedia has as much right as the rest of us to participate in a discussion as long as it's civil and in good faith; especially when he (and others) have admitted involvement in Lospedia. It shows how he is respecting the wikipedia process, and not trying to do anything dodgy (contrast to many people's suggestions that individuals from Lostpedia are puppeting here). Let's just let this be a discussion of the article, instead of about the people who participate. I'm sure the admin closing this will look into it extra carefully, considering how much debate/contraversy it's generating. --`/aksha 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, and avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation." -- LeflymanTalk 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep: as per comments (in prior AfD, by Manticore(above) and by Angela and others on village pump (policy)). --Kaini 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comments:
 * full disclosure: i'm a sysop on lostpedia as of a few days ago, but was not when i initially entered into this debate.
 * policy: i think that this debate has raised some interesting points regarding the notability guidelines on wikipedia, as well as some terms (specifically (fan)cruft, fansite, fanlisting) needing a clearer definition. i don't think the ones in place are sufficient or clear enough at present. if they were, this debate would not have dragged on so long.
 * regarding matthew fenton's contributions to this debate: i feel that this user's comments show a strong personal bias. whilst i strongly disagree with bad faith AfD nominations for articles such as Memory Alpha in 'retaliation' for the ongoing lostpedia controversy, i feel that the extraordinary lengths this user has gone to in order to ensure no mention of lostpedia is present on wiki show such a bias, and as such are borderline in bad faith in themselves --Kaini 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So why were the lengthy comments from Mr. Fenton left on this page, while the comments specifically taking issue with them moved to the talk page? Especially when those comments contain a number of factual inaccuracies.  --Milo H Minderbinder 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, i'm going to restore them. Comments from people explaining their vote (even if it was an abstain) shouldn't be moved. It's only the off topic discussions arising from people commenting on other people's votes. As for Mr. Fenton's possible bias, i think it is noteworthy. And going a bit too far (see this edit). --`/aksha 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Extended comments were moved according WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR -- however, the content was not changed in any way. The comments of Fenton were the basis of many of the subsequent discussion responses, and were appropriate to leave in full; as were the long Keep comments which followed a similar point-by-point format. The 1570-word, 3 page comments of Milo H Minderbender were trimmed to his "abstention" introduction about inaccuracies, and the continuation moved to the discussion page; they were exclusively a reply to (and about) MatthewFenton, and did not deal with any actual Wikipedia policy-- instead discussed personal, off-site disagreements that would likely be classified under WP:NPA. This discussion's length has far exceeded any comparable AfD discussions. As noted at WP:REFACTOR: Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility.-- LeflymanTalk 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree strongly enough with your assertion "These comments were appropriate to move to the discussion page, as they were exclusively a reply to (and about) MatthewFenton, and did not deal with any actual Wikipedia policy-- instead discuss personal disagreements that would likely be classified under WP:NPA." These comments directly deal with Wikipedia policy and more specifically to this AfD.  How is disputing the claim that an article cited for notability is a blog (a link to one of the articles in question: []) a personal attack, much less irrelevant to the topic?  From WP:NPA let me quote: "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks."  I also made accusations of bad faith, and backed up those accusations with examples and evidence.  You obviously feel that the posting record of people voting here and their credibility is relevant because you have made accusations of SPA and conflict of interest.  I believe I have made no personal attacks in my comments here; if you feel that something I've said falls under NPA, the more appropriate response is to single it out so that I may either clarify my remark, or withdraw it and apologize for it.  In addition, WP:ARCHIVE (assuming I understand it correctly) applies to archiving an entire page, not selectively removing comments, so it doesn't apply here. (not to mention that it applies to talk pages, which I don't believe this is)  I'm not sure that archiving an AfD while it is still in progress is even allowed by wikipedia policy.  In addition, WP:REFACTOR says; "refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors", which you certainly didn't do in regards to my comments.  In regard to length, I was unaware that there was a word or page limit on AfD comments, could you point me to the WP policy that spells it out?   --Milo H Minderbinder 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk_page_guidelines, under the third item:
 * "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood..."
 * I was responding to a number of points. I certainly wouldn't have written as much if there wasn't so much incorrect information posted that needed correcting.  Are you here to discuss Lostpedia or to discuss users' posting styles?  --Milo H Minderbinder 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Guildlines are guildlines, they help tell us what to do in most cases. This AfD is far from being a typical AfD. Milo, i'd recommend you try and shorten your comments unless you don't mind having it moved. And put the quotes into italics. Just to make life easier for the admin who's going to close this - if nothing else, it means more chance the admin will actually read through your extended comments. --`/aksha  02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG Keep. -- I don't favor deleting anything from a knowledgebase such as this. This entry is valuable simply because there is so much LOST information on the net and so many fan sites. This entry provides a very good neutral grounding place for anyone seeking basic information about a very popular and (I'll say it) unique program. There is so much about this show to read and investigate it would seem imperative that a resource such as the Wikipedia could provide something of a road map. Very few elements of pop culture inspire such interest and response so the fear of "pedia" creep doesn't seem a real danger. It might not fit in with the concept many purists have for this project but it definitely fits into the realm of what should be recorded and archived here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver.surfer (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 October 2006
 * — Possible single purpose account: Silver.surfer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Strong keep: [mega strong keep] Omg, Jimbo Wales edited there. Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia and The LOST Wikia. Jimbo also thinks Lostpedia and The LOST Wikia should have there own pages. It does not in any way fail! --75.18.56.237 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 75.18.56.237 appears to be the IP of Iron Chef. See: User_talk:Iron_Chef. This user started The LOST Wikia article currently up for speed delete.--<font size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's been written up in Wired, has a profile at SciFi.com, and has thousands of contributors.  It meets WP:WEB. --Elonka 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it passes the Bajoran wormhole test User:Pedant 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep from my original Delete - like he saidm the Bajoran worm hole test. <font face="Tahoma">thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per Matthew Fenton and PKtm. In addition I agree that this nomination is totally parallel to Articles for deletion/LostCasts, with new accounts being created for the purpose of voting here.  --  Wikipedical 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominator abstained from voting due to this be a procedual nomination so how does speedyish Delete per nom apply? Also under what criteria do you believe that this should be speedy deleted? --70.48.173.247 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, MatthewFenton (the original nominator for this deletion) changed his recommendation from delete to "Keep". How exactly are you basing your recommendation on his? --Jabrwocky7 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per reasons stated by Angela in this articles deletion review. You can view her comments at the bottom of this page. Iced Kola  T  -  C  00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I don't see any evidence that the Sci-Fi site of the week award is well-known, but I would still consider the "review", as it's described there, as non-trivial coverage. Footnote 4 of WP:WEB seems to support using reviews in this fashion. The St. Cloud Times write-up is marginal, but coverage of Lostpedia is about half of the seven paragraphs, so I'd also consider that non-trivial coverage. Having about 1.5 media coverages gives it just more than one, and "more than one" was the definition of multiple in three of the four dictionaries I checked. Ergo, weak keep. (Though I considered it, the Guardian article strikes me as trivial.)--Kchase T 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If a web site being reviewed anywhere constitutes notability enough for a WP article, then there are probably thousands of web sites that would get articles, which doesn't seem like the answer. There's a whole publishing industry out there covering new web sites, so a couple of citations (particularly one from a pretty minor publication like the St. Cloud Times) aren't exactly a rare commodity, and don't constitute true notability. -- PKtm 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:WEB says "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". If you feel that the wikipedia policy sets the bar too low, the solution is to try and change the policy, not to ignore the policy.  There's a more complete list of references at [], some of which have been included in previous versions of the article.  There are a decent number, although not many are the main point of the article; I certainly feel like there are enough references to qualify as "multiple", especially considered along with the fact that LP was inluded in The Lost Experience.  Feel free to add appropriate ones back in.  And if you feel that LP doesn't meet WP:WEB, how do you feel about the inclusion of Wookieepedia?  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep After reading the whole conversations, I think it is better to keep a borderline article than to delete it. The article is not badly written, seems balanced. So Keep for me even if I have some concerns regarding its notability. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 17:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP All the haters are snobs. :) jengod 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably time to re-review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Comments such as the one above are not conducive to a civil and good faith discussion.  Please try to show more respect for the opinions of other editors. --Elonka 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. As per Milo H Minderbinder, Lostpedia meets WP:WEB, WP:EL and the arguments against its layout, wiki nature or text adverts are spurious. As per Angela and others, the site has a significant number of users, outstripping Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, and is gaining increasing media coverage. The amount of media coverage it has already attained is enough to be notable. There are many Wikipedia editors who have formed either an outdated or inaccurate opinion about Lostpedia's verifiability and notability, I hope the facts revealed by this discussion convinces them to rethink. 195.173.23.111 10:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (if you have a problem with me being an IP address, have a look at my contribs - I have edited under this address since February and edit both LOST and non-LOST topics regularly. Don't make me break out the "Extraordinary Rendition" account to vote, as it doesn't edit Wikipedia - this IP does)
 * Personal attack in above comment has been removed. Original version available here. --Elonka 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Mabye what is going on is that wikipedia is scared of a little competition? But seriously the site has been recognised by the creators of Lost what higher accalade can a Lost site get? --Dee4leeds 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Sails through WP:WEB, article has had media coverage such as a review in Wired News and won Sci-Fi's site of the week as mentioned above. Englishrose 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it is notable, it meets all those regulations people are citing, and... Yeah.  What I said.  On a slightly different note, it's really silly to be saying that "Wikipedia is afraid of competition" and such, because there is VALID concern for Wikipedia becoming a web directory with this sort of thing being included.   So stop using those arguments.--The Sporadic Update 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think accusing Wikipedia of being afraid of competition is a bit much, I think its more to do with the quite young keepers of the LOST article (I won't say moderators, as none of them are) feeling this fierce pride in their work, and a wish on their behalf not to link to other sites that also cover this content, arguably with better information. Many sites are like this. Digital Spy won't let you do this, and Lost Media won't either. Its a shame that something like Wikipedia, and the web in general, which are supposed to be for sharing knowledge and information, can be hijacked by people who are fiercely competitive, rather than collaborative. --217.65.158.91 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree saying WP is afraid of competition is silly, I think it was more an attempt at humour rather than the user's argument though --Nickb123 3rd 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per many of the fine points made above. --Myles Long 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Englishrose and others. TacoDeposit 01:17, 1 November 2006 (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.