Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recyclopedia

Must we list strange rebellion project sites of no note, just because they are using Wikipedia's version of the Mediawiki software? user:Zanimum


 * Who is we? What is "no note"? Recyclopedia doesn't run on Wikipedia's version of the Mediawiki software. If I forget the "no note" and imagine I understand "we": yes, for we accept encyclopedic articles on any subject that can be considered more or less encyclopedic. "Strange rebellion project sites" are certainly interesting enough to mention... Guaka 20:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems there is some disagreement over whether the link to recyclopedia should be live or not. I see no reason why it should not. It makes sense for us to make it easy for people to visit external links, and just because we might personally not like the site is no reason to delink it (delinking for that reason is hardly a neutral thing to do). Seems only natural to me that an article about a website should have a link to the website itself. --Camembert

Not when the site is currently significant primarily as a home to anti-Wikipedia trolls. In such cases, I don't think we have a need to raise the Google rank by using a live link, or even any link. Facilitating harassment of Wikipedia contributors doesn't help our purpose. However, the VfD votes may make the discussion of whether we should actively help trolls or not moot. Jamesday 08:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the sysop of the site. It's been taken over by what you all call 'trolls'. Since they wrote this article, which I don't actually appreciate, I would appreciate it if you actually either deleted it or changed it. They have populated the website and I have not had time to look over it, but I can say that there hasn't been any posts about the things that the site was setup for. Although I am interested in their 'troll' culture and what they want to do, they have turned down an offer for trollpedia.org - free hosting! Argh. So, you have my permission to delete it. The site will be taken down in some time. I started the project, without having time to continue it. Before I knew it, it was populated with about 30megs of text. /-: Bobo


 * This is just a reason to keep this article - if what you write is true! Maybe you can rewrite/change the article so that you can appreciate the article. Guaka 14:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't think what they are doing is bad, I just haven't had time to look at it. As far as I can tell, it hasn't helped build any articles yet and I haven't even advertised it yet. bobo


 * Don't complain that the wiki isn't what you want it to be; there is a solution for that... Edit war!!!

Wikipedia links to lots of other wikis, see Wiki. Deleting the recyclopedia article for political reasons goes against the purpose of Wikipedia; to be an encyclopedia! Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. If you delete this article, you should delete all the other articles about other wikis (which you shouldn't do :-)

From VfD:

Insignificant website. Self-advertising nonsense. Btag 02:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Sockpuppet - do not count this as a vote.


 * I don't see how the article is "nonsense" in any way, and it's not really self-advertising (I've done a little bit of a rewrite myself, and I have nothing to do with Recyclopedia). The website isn't especially significant at the moment, it's true, but as far as I am aware the information in the article is verifiable, so I'm not sure that should be a major issue. I think it's OK to keep. --Camembert 02:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Many other insignificant websites have articles about them. And actually I don't agree: I think Recyclopedia as a project is significant for Wikipedia. If you think it's self-advertising: go ahead and try to rewrite it (which has probably already been done by some else right now..). Guaka 03:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If other small wikis, like consumerium and symbolwiki are being kept, this one should too. Angela. 12:40, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Fails Alexa test - Traffic Rank for recyclopedia.info: 4,697,880. Martin
 * For a page not in the top 100,000, most would agree that popularity alone would not suffice to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't think popularity is the issue here. Recyclopedia as a project is interesting to mention on Wikipedia since it is directly related to Wikipedia. Consumerium, Wikinfo, and even Wikitravel or Wiktionary are probably not in the top 100,000. Still, these sites are to have an article. Guaka 22:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't believe that we should include subjects that are merely interesting in relation to Wikipedia: we should be a generic encyclopedia, and not become self-analysing in this way. Martin 22:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martin on that, but of course, just as it's no reason to keep, something being interesting in relation to the Wikipedia isn't a reason to delete either. Personally, I don't think whether something is "interesting" or not in any way should have any bearing on whether we keep it or not - it's too subjective a critereon. Still, I don't feel particularly strongly about this. --Camembert


 * It's interesting to see that Btag has only contributed 4 times... Guaka 22:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It is! Btag 17:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for information, a lot of the other wikis we have pages on fail the Alexa test. Angela. 02:26, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stockepedia - 4,674,835
 * McFly - 3,365,678 (Deleted after VfD)
 * InfoSecPedia - 3,339,731 (Listed on VfD and deleted. Later undeleted by Jimbo)
 * SourceryForge - 2,530,719
 * Jewpedia - 2,314,996
 * Consumerium - 1,749,514
 * Wikisophia - 1,522,260 (Turned into a redirect following VfD)
 * Evowiki - 1,040,874
 * Wikinfo - 1,032,070 (Note its old address gets 190,192)
 * The Metaweb - 713,284
 * Memory Alpha - 668,860


 * for information, here are those with rank not yet mentioned: Jamesday 09:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Symbolwiki - low, no data
 * Wikitravel - 235,850
 * Wiktionary - 105,395


 * Keep, there's plenty more obscure topics included here. MK 06:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, because at present it seems notable mostly as a home for trolls seeking to harass this project and its contributors and we don't really need to reward that. Subject to change if it grows without us sending Google-rank its way, or if it ever stops being a place significant mainly for harassment of contributors here. Jamesday 09:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, merely a forum for 142.177 to spread his libelous claims about Wikipedia contributors. The other small wikis at least try to do something meaningful.--Eloquence* 10:28, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Recyclopedia by Angela:

Hi, I'm the sysop of the site. It's been taken over by what you all call 'trolls'. Since they wrote this article, which I don't actually appreciate, I would appreciate it if you actually either deleted it or changed it. They have populated the website and I have not had time to look over it, but I can say that there hasn't been any posts about the things that the site was setup for. Although I am interested in their 'troll' culture and what they want to do, they have turned down an offer for trollpedia.org - free hosting! Argh. So, you have my permission to delete it. The site will be taken down in some time. I started the project, without having time to continue it. Before I knew it, it was populated with about 30megs of text. /-: Bobo (posted by user:219.88.246.62)


 * I think that's sufficient to delete. Martin 13:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that'd be sufficient to keep the article - if it were true! Guaka 14:18, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, since the sysop plans to take down the site. When this site stops to exist, it will be even less significant than it is now. Andris 15:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * How do we know this was written by the sysop? If this person were the sysop, why didn't he change the Recyclopedia main page and block others from changing it? Guaka 16:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The site is currently offline because it has reached its bandwidth limit. However I can confirm that shortly before the site went offline, anonymous editing was disabled. This suggests that the site administrator was indeed out of tolerance. Also, you can read Bobo's previous comment on the website direction via the google cache -- Tim Starling 00:41, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, then, if it's going down. - Fennec 16:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. That it is going down is an argument to keep, not an argument to delete. Everyking 20:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recyclopedia
See also: Talk:Recyclopedia/Delete

Defunct website. Not verifiable. Original research. anthony (see warning) [reasons updated]
 * Comment: This already survived VfD not long ago. Why are you nominating it again? That it is defunct is irrelevant, if it had importance while it existed. Everyking 21:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Never had importance for the short time that it existed (was mainly a troll hang out) and has been offline much longer than it has been online. There is no indication that it will be brought back. Maximus Rex 22:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This thing was online for a month and it was important?  Not in my book.  blankfaze | &#9835 00:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep. Wikipedians have a special interest in Wikis, so the threshold for what is "important" can be set pretty low. And there aren't that many of them. The problem with things like vanity pages and secondary schools is that they are of interest to almost nobody, and the number of such articles that could be contributed could be in the millions. As of 2004 how many public Wikis have been created? A couple of hundred? I'd think we could have articles on as many of them as people cared to write without straining the capacity of the system. That's my reasoning, anyway. Dpbsmith 02:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it was online for about a month and has been offline for the last 2 months. You can't visit the site. Maximus Rex 02:03, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That in itself doesn't argue against it. We have articles about JenniCam, which has been offline for months; an airplane that only flew once and has been offline for decades, a city which has been offline for a couple of millennia, and any number of dead people. The issue should be whether Recyclopedia was notable, not whether it is functioning. Of course, other things being equal, defunct websites are less notable than functioning ones. Dpbsmith 14:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the ~1 month it was online, it only had a handful of editors (mainly just 1 troll actually). Every time someone creates a wiki, that doesn't mean it needs a wikipedia entry. I have seen nothing to indicate that it was notable. Maximus Rex 16:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, changing my vote to delete. I wasn't there, didn't know the site, didn't know the troll. I accept others' judgement of non-notability. But the reason for deleting it should be that it was never notable, not that it is defunct. Dpbsmith 18:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. You're right.  I updated the reason. anthony (see warning) 10:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Aaaah, I feel much better now). Dpbsmith 20:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Short-lived defunct websites are generally not notable. Being a wiki does not change that. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:06, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not defunct; I just hit it and it asked me for a password. I assume it is now a closed community (for fairly obvious reasons). - Hephaestos|&#167; 16:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No there is actually nothing behind the password. Maximus Rex 16:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this was a questionable site the one time I got through. The article tries to give it legitimacy - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 02:55, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, wasn't notable while operational. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * VfD tag was not added until the 25th, so should probably be left until the 30th before deleting. Angela, not voting. 01:38 25 May 2004 (UTC)

(article was deleted)

Article gone?
Too bad. I would like to read the article again. Besides, there are still links to this article... maybe the people who wanted this article to be deleted can do something about that? Gu@k@ 01:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This mirror has a version which seems most similar to the one deleted IIRC. There's a slightly older one in this Google cache. It isn't possible for sysops to undelete this now as it was deleted prior to the last database crash so is not present in the archive because the archive tables were not backed up. Angela. 20:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)