Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot


 * 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. True, this article has trouble with reliable sources and original research, but the topic is substantially notable with tons and tons of independent press coverage. I have marked the article as unreferenced. I'd encourage anyone with complaints about the article to be bold and add sourcing and remove original research. Alphachimp 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot

 * — (View AfD)

The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources, and it doesn't seems to be based on anything but original research. -- Karl Meier 11:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No delete necessary. - Flag it as needing attention instead. Slashdot is very notable; the article will probably be fixed pretty quickly.  // Josh Kagan Jrkagan 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue here is not notability. The issue is that it has been here for more than five years, and no one has been able to write a proper article using any reliable secondary sources. -- Karl Meier 12:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you tagged it for sources, or just gone straight to AFD? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If proper secondary sources for this article actually exist, then I would expect that someone after five years would have used just one of them to create a proper article. Fact is that this article is very old, and no one has been able to write a proper article with proper references. -- Karl Meier 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - let's not go overboard with nominations here. Slashdot is quite notable. — Mets501 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:WEB with flying colours - and close this nom before it gets slashdotted... MER-C 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Award winning website. Catchpole 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Award winning? What are you talking about? -- Karl Meier 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a website, that has won an award. A Webby award. Catchpole 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:WEB, but you're right about needing sourcing. AFD shouldn't be the first stop when sources are obviously available, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is true that reliable secondary sources are "obviously available", then why is it that hundreds if not thousands of editors haven't used a single such source, when working on the article for more than five years? Frankly, I doubt that it is true that these reliable secondary sources are actually so "obviously available". -- Karl Meier 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, slashdot's so big that you have to go down to the fifth page of google results before you start finding sites about it rather than just posts of news from it. It's been written about numerous times, it's won a webby award, it has an alexa rank placing it in the top 400 sites on the internet, and you'd be much better recieved if you actually asked people to provide those sources instead of assuming they can't be there. I nominated other slashdot-related articles for deletion because they pretty much just documented memes in an unverifiable fashion, but the essential information of the site itself should be pretty simple to confirm. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More links:  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep. Unless someone can actually provide a compelling case that this article is a hoax, of course (which is the primary reason for WP:V). Lack of desired content is not a criteria or valid rationale for AFD. There have been stub articles with far less "third party" info that have been around for years. Plus the site is notable enough that it qualifies as its own source. POV and Speculation can be deleted from the article if found. 23skidoo 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the relatively few genuinely notable and verifiable web-community articles. I agree 100% with the nominator that the current referencing sucks, but that shouldn't be hard to remedy: I get 1790 matches for Slashdot using a Google Books search. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A PROPOSAL I would be willing to take the time to cleanup/rewrite the article using only material verifiable by reliable sources. I see this as preferable to deletion (and certainly preferable to having an unreferenced article).  It might not be a one-man job, though.  Is anyone else willing to help? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep genuinely notable web community. Suggest flagging for cleanup instead. Squeezeweasel 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Incredibly obvious speedy keep Tag it for cleanup, tag it as unreferenced, but don't nominate an article on a hugely notable subject for deletion. -- Kicking222 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually is referenced, it's just that most of the references are on the site itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:12, 12 December 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.