Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openplaques


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Openplaques

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Note: article now at Open Plaques as this is the form of name it uses on its website PamD (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This organisation does not seem to be particularly notable, no references on the page. Nothing on Google News, nothing substantial on Google normal search (where else should I be looking?. Template:Openplaque, created the same day, inserts external reference to the site. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification. Fails WP:GNG I think. I am not bringing the template here for discussion, only the article: I merely note its existence and that the "what links here" of the article are in most cases the result of its transclusion. Si Trew (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep  The virtue of this in terms of WP is because of the template. That's a useful link to an external database, just as we already do for findagrave, geograph and various location-based services. If the template is in use, it makes sense to have some wiki-hosted target to explain what the service is about, even if notability is otherwise marginal.
 * Sadly past experience suggests that the article will be deleted, then others will call for the link template to be deleted too on no useful basis whatsoever. Consider what makes WP work best, not how you can find policy excuses to delete something else. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I started the AfD and I am a self-confessed inclusionist. I think this smacks of WP:PROMO but was too polite to say. Yes, I will propose the template for deletion if the article gets deleted; I think its primary purpose is to give the article more links than it really has. At George Orwell I left one vaguely useful link to a plaque and deleted one other that is essentially a holding page asking someone else to submit a photo of the plaque at that location. I also have doubts because the current street numbering may not be that of a street in the past, so the geo data could well be inaccurate, but then this site doesn't have the standards of WP:RS and WP:V that Wikipedia has. So I happen to know that at least one of the geolocators on that site is in the wrong place, but it's not my business to correct an external site.
 * I note also that that site contains content from Wikipedia articles but does not seem to link to the GFDL. I appreciate that this is a new site and they can't do everything at once, but it is absolutely essential that they link to the GFDL. That again is irrelevant to this particular discussion, but I am just trying to do one thing at once and give other editors a chance to comment.
 * My personal view is this could be a good site, but it isn't now. WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the founder of the site. Thanks for raising the Wikipedia attribution issue - we certainly want to link to Wikipedia correctly, following the Terms of Use, and will look at improving this as soon as possible. I'm an active Wikipedia contributor but didn't start the Open Plaques page, and will refrain from voting on the grounds of a WP:CONFLICT. The only thing I'd add to this discussion is to admit that the project is still in its early stages in terms of gaining wider coverage and participation - however recent RSA funding, the early support from Flickr, and the active community of contributors means that the project is now starting to grow, and hopes to become more usable and notable in the coming months.  Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, we'd really welcome any support or advice from Wikipedia contributors. Cheers. 82.69.187.206 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope this helps with your decision. Thanks, DeirdreMM (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's no indication of notability. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the site provides hard evidence of blue (and other) plaques. These plaques are generally about people who are notable enough to have wikipedia entries. As Andy Dingley said, the main advantage for WP is the metadata. as for being notable, it's one of the very few websites that flickr automatically parse: http://code.flickr.com/blog/2009/07/06/extraextraextra/ Elwell (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the existence of the template is irrelevant. This organisation has received no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello, I am an Open Plaques team contributor. We haven't had mainstream media coverage yet, but here are some links to coverage of Open Plaques on blogs and other websites:
 * Tlatlet: Charles Knight - April 2010
 * Liverpool Landscapes - 11th Feb 2010
 * The Humanities and Technology Camp (ThatCamp) - 14th January 2010
 * Open Knowledge Foundation Blog - 11th August 2009 - Open Plaques: open data about UK heritage sites
 * Flickr blog - 28th September 2009
 * Open Plaques - Suprageography 19th August 2009
 * Flickr blog - 6th July 2009
 * Open Objects - 21st June 2009
 * Digital Archeology and Museums - The British Museum, Slideshare February 2010
 * Open Plaques: building an open content community from scratch - Museums and the Web 2010 - Denver, USA
 * Comment Blogs ain't no good. Nor are flickr, facebook, or anything similar. "We haven't had mainstream media coverage yet" - I'm afraid it's a case of come back when you have. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Acceptance for this year's Museums and the Web conf certainly is though. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep at correct title Open Plaques - have added ref to it getting funding from RSA, but its own website uses 2 words for the title. PamD (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Note (to go at bottom of page): article now at Open Plaques as this is the form of name it uses on its website PamD (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the contributor discussing this above admits that they have received nothing but coverage on some blogsd. This may be notable in the future, but fails WP:GNG now. Novaseminary (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2010 (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.