Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (5th 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The result was   Withdrawn Never mind. I still don't see how it meets WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lostpedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I fail to see any real notability here. All sources are either primary (more than half!), trivial mentions (top 25 list in Entertainment Weekly, a couple articles more related to Lost than to the 'pedia, a few blogs, a JPG IMAGE etc.). Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing. Deleted in 2005, kept in 2006, kept again in 2007 after two troll nominations. How the heck this is even close to GA class is beyond me (and I should point out, I have seen at least one GA get nominated for deletion and actually deleted before). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Wow, some of those references need to be deleted (see the JPEG reference). Cleanup, however, is not a deletion concern. Therefore, because there are enough sources and an award from Wired, I'm going to lean keep. D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. I think the sources are borderline at best, and the award marginal. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to inherent notability, this article is useful for internal purposes, as when comments are made along the lines that "there is more discussion on Lostpedia" or "delete, this belongs on Lostpedia." I also believe that in the absence of BLP or other supervening concerns, a fifth or sixth AfD nomination of the same article is unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Inherent how? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is only two real AfDs which resulted in a delete and a keep respective to time. The others are all troll nominations. D ARTH P ANDA duel 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No comment on to keep this or delete it (yet), but if Memory Alpha (which is a wiki about Star Trek and FAR more notable than Lostpedia) got eliminated, than I can't see why this would get to stay.  TJ   Spyke   05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I personally consider an award from a notable publication like Wired enough, but it's not the only award or recognition they received. Lostpedia was SciFi.com Site of the Week on July 5, 2006. ... Lostpedia was number 3 in EW.com's (Entertainment Weekly) 25 best fansites of 2007. (there's also an award in there I didn't mention because I considered it trivial.) -- Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if GAs have been deleted in the past, surely there is a way to find a solution rather than deleting quality content. 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable site,as proven by awards. I suppose it is possible to see in general the repeated attempts to delete this & similar sites as consonant with an inclination not to just remove information about fiction onto outside sites, but to remove information about the sites themselves. I am not referring to the motives for this particular nomination.  DGG (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Newyorkbrad and Mgm. `JoshuaZ (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. One accepted criteria for inclusion of websites is the receipt of awards or similar recognition and the Sci-Fi one hits that mark; the other is recognition in non-trivial media and the Rolling Stone citation is enough right there. 23skidoo (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets notability standards with the references and award.  Honestly, I'm puzzled why people seem to have such a grudge against having this article, after this many times surviving nominations for deletion (surely it has been more than two?) it's starting to get a bit ridiculous.  --Minderbinder (talk) 21:22, 9 December 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.