Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thothica


 * 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 of the debate was Delete.  Voice of All T 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thothica
Nn forum. Nn Alexa rank. Zero "link:" results in Google. "113" members.-- Perfecto 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet alert. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * a bit of a misleading and gratuitous comment, no? be at least fair about it... BobbyRay 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep cool, Quarl, please. BobbyRay, I'm sorry I forgot to add a phrase in my nomination above, so it wasn't clear.  The phrase is, "Fails WP:WEB".  WP:WEB is the guideline that helps us identify which websites are encyclopedic or not.  If you can cite reliable sources asserting the site's notability, then this article can be considered positively.  Again, sorry. -- Perfecto 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for popping in and clarifying a bit, Perfecto. Unfortunately, I can't do that.  Asides from the entry in WikiPedia, we've kept a low profile until now intentionally, however we will be posting a new website in the next few days, and perhaps that will help clarify some things for you guys from our side.  I think that, from a 'uniqueness' and 'utility' standpoint, Thothica deserves mention, and will likely will soon for other reasons, as well.  If I may make a suggestion for a compromise, perhaps removing the notice and putting the article on 'probation' for a few months would be fair - if by then we don't meet guidelines and someone wants to, reconsider deletion then.  Thothica IS unique, it's more significant than it currently appears to be, and does serve a very useful purpose to a number of people...and it is an interesting project and informative article, according to those who have contacted us based on the information in the article.  and again, as I understand it, the guidelines are just that - ONLY guidelines that editors/moderators can use IF they so choose, but they are not requirements articles are "required" to meet.   thanks in advance...  BobbyRay 04:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged (WP:AUTO)."  You admitted the conflict of interest and your desire to push this because it gives the site exposure.  Go promote your site elsewhere, please, not here.  Thank you. -- Perfecto 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry u look at it that way. that's not the correct interpretation - i said it was the 'only' exposure we had, not that that was the goal of having the article there.  we've not promoted the thing *at all* and i posted it here at the suggestion of someone else who felt that, due to the nature of what we were up to, it would be appropriate.  That you choose to interpret my being open into an admission of improper use and conflict of interest, well, sorry.  poor choice of words, i guess.  Anyway, i can see i'm wasting my time and your time.  Do what you will.  I can only hope you will reconsider, but i can see which way the wind's blowing on this subject.  Anyway, good luck with wikipedia - as i say in my user description, i think this is a great idea, and i'm sorry that for some reason someone's decided we don't belong.  but i have to say, i'm perhaps not the only one 'conflicted' - but at least i admitted sensitivity to the issue and tried consciously not to step over the line.  peace.  BobbyRay 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I identified with you what it takes to get websites listed here. AFAICS, someone will rewrite the article a few months later if your site is encyclopedic enough.  I hope you will contribute to other articles where you find interest. -- Perfecto 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ought to be speedy.  -- Perfecto 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Quarl 11:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article seems informative. I don't understand the attempted censorship and see no problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.176.215 (talk • contribs)
 * Since when are articles here deemed worthy based on Google rankings or popularity? An article about an arts and sciences community seems a lot more appropriate here than articles about AOL or Yahoo!, for example - unless you also plan to propose deleting them as well? BobbyRay 02:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, alexa rank of 2,428,156 (as opposed to unranked).  Wikipedia has somewhat quantitative criteria for inclusion of this kind of thing (e.g. Alexa rank of 100,000), see WP:WEB.  More important than AOL or Yahoo?  That's silly.  --Quarl 03:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that BobbyRay, the article creator, is a new user and creator of the Thothica website. --Quarl 03:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me Thothica.com has touched on on a very good idea: that the internet be used in a constructive mannor that is conducive to high-content material and civil discussion. I see that numerous "online communities" are listed in Wiki - what's the bias of "Perfecto?" Immunologist 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Metacomment: Immunologist's only edits are to this article. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Metacomment: Irrelevant comment, Quarl. Anyone, including me starts somewhere - posts a first comment/edit somewhere, probably (as was the case with me) anonymously. The number of contributions to WP of anyone has no bearings on the relevance or right to voice one's opinion. And obviously, if someone feels s/he's been wronged, s/he'll muster support from other community members. That's normal and natural. And if I am not entirely mistaken, this very same principle that you now call sock-puppet was the base of Wikipedia itself, not? Think back a little before applying different measures for the same thing. Helmar 10:06, 27 December 2005 (GMT+0200)
 * Totally relevant comment. Sock puppetry is certainly not the base of Wikipedia.  Also, as may be obvious,  has only contributed to Thothica and its AFD. --Quarl 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for the clarification, however we're not fully 'deployed' so naturally such rankings would be low. However it is influential beyond it's size (you should see the members list, and check out the abilities of many of the members).  in any case, we will be launching officially in january and likely will meet many of the standards mentioned above.  I've tried to be pretty sensitive to appearances, here, and have (for example) accepted advice/guidance from one of your colleagues when the article was first submitted.  -- and please note, i didn't say more "important", I said more "appropriate" BobbyRay 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep this article. I use Thothica every day and its a worthwhile service and an interesting community Martin 24.81.1.90 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * as far as notability, it seems the policies at the WP WEB link are designed to ensure little guys don't have a shot. to my knowledge, we're the first of our kind of "community environment" - perhaps that's enough in and of itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyray (talk • contribs)
 * Don't have a shot at what? Having an article in Wikipedia doesn't mean you're cool, and not having one doesn't mean your not cool.  It just means your Alexa rank isn't high enough, nothing personal.  --Quarl 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Metacomment to Bobbyray: Please Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you.  --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Metacomment to Quarl - I resent that accusation. it's unfair and if you check the ip's of the user's involved, i suspect you'll find they likely do NOT match mine.  I strongly request you rescind that accusation. BobbyRay 04:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Quarl, please understand: all i am trying to accomplish here is to prevent what i STRONGLY feel, as a long time wikipedia user, the unfair deletion of the article. I don't think it takes up unnecessary space, i do feel it is informative and appropriate here, and i think it is not necessary to delete it.  i do not control what others say.  and i do not control what happens here.  however the article in question was posted in good faith, and i believe it deserves to be here.  the guidelines on the WP WEB page are just that - guidelines, and not policies, so they do NOT need to be interpreted as if they were.  Plus, they seem to be more or less arbitrary - certainly not based on any research?  i'm not sure i understand why ur so vociferously opposed to it, however for me, it seems quite an inoffensive article at worst, and at least interesting to a certain subset of users. BobbyRay 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Article fails WP:WEB and that's the end of it. If/when the site becomes famous in its own right, then re-create it. Comment: BobbyRay, if you can't provide external verification of the site's importance, it HAS to go (as per 24.71.91.173's comments). You are more than welcome to nominate other, similar articles for deletion (be careful not to violate WP:POINT in doing so though). ...what does it say when large, established corporate sites and services are included, but small, unknown private ones are excluded.... It says that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, which means all information must be verifiable and that articles must, in some loose sense, be "encyclopedic" or "important". WP:WEB is one of the main guidelines used for determining the "importance" or "encyclopedicness" of websites. Zunaid 15:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Greetings, all! I am one of the co-founders of Sonork, the IM Thothica is based on. I'm new to WP (except for one anonymous change some months ago). As one of its pilot phase members I am not new to Thothica, though. I find the discussion here utterly irrelevant if not downright absurd. If WP aims to be a representative and relevant source of information, entries like these IMO form the very backbone. The entry may not be encyclopedic at this very moment, but it's also a Catch-22, because it never may attain this goal if it gets deleted here. Given that the search engines don't yet list the site itself, most of the members have come via the WP listing itself - at least according to my ad-hoc 'survey' among the Thothica members on my list, while doing some research about online communities. Also as a result of the notice on the Thothica page and the subsequent mud-fight on this page, I have taken the liberty to edit the entry, removing spelling mistakes, restructuring the content, thus making it more readable. I have also removed those parts that may be 'self-promoting'. That said, from what I have read above, it seems it's not entirely clear to the editors themselves which rule (?) the entry violated. I at least hope to have removed any remaining issues other than that the entry on Dec 27th, 2005 is not encyclopedic. If this is the KO criterion, then remove the entry, otherwise keep it up and monitor its hits, plus the continuous editing and extension of the entry itself. I certainly advocate the latter option, hence my editing of the entry itself. As the entry doesn't violate any rule other than possibly being a little premature (official launch happening in a few weeks), why not keep it for now and revisit it at the end of January - I am sure the Wiki has a feature for this, not? - Helmar Rudolph, Cape Town,RSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar org (talk • contribs)
 * Helmar's point is rather spurious. Wikipedia is WP:NOT not an advertising venue.  Period.  End of discussion.  Down that path lies madness and spam.  Re-list the site if and when it becomes notable for itself; in the interim delete. 24.71.91.173 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The I'd say that in the interests of fairness, other similar articles should be deleted. "Notability" is not a fair criterion, IMHO - it's just an indicator of longevity and/or size, and as guideline, the 'Notability' criterion is itself under review for deletion.  Our project is interesting for other reasons, and it wasn't posted here for promotional purposes, period.  It was posted because it was different, unique, and interesting - and possibly significant.  You should look at this with a Big Picture view, too - what does it say when large, established corporate sites and services are included, but small, unknown private ones are excluded, regardless of their uniqueness or utility?  But I've stated the case in case for keeping the article too much already.  It goes or stays based on a decision made by whoever will make that decision.  Maybe it gets reposted later, maybe not.  I'm just sorry it's been such a big issue.  Partly my fault, but I think largely not.   In any case, I propose ending the discussion here.  I've had my say.  Regardless of how this comes out, wikipedia is still one of the best resources on the internet for information of any kind, and my opinion in that sense won't change.  And in case someone wishes to twist THAT comment into having some self-serving, unintended, intent, please don't - it's just an honest and sincere comment I felt compelled to make...as all the rest of mine have been, regardless of the editorializing that has accompanied them.  peace...  BobbyRay 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * go for it. Nice to see that 'voluntary' guidelines with arbitrary conditions (themselves under re-evaluation) are now written stone and 'must' be adhered to.  Yeah, sour grapes, and I know it.  But just so you know, I'm not about to go running around nominating other articles for deletion.  It's not worth the effort, really, and I'm sure would enamour me even less to those In Charge here. I also won't repost the Thothica article, as - despite the stated 'reasoning' used here to the contrary - I'm certain that the motivation for removing it, if not at least 99% percent of the reason for the antipathy towards it, is because i happen to be both the article's author as well as the project's founder.  Lack of foresight on my part, I guess, and I'm guessing some here have long memories.  Perhaps someone else one day may deem it worthy of inclusion post something, but I'm not going to hold my breath - it's not our goal to become "famous" or a "household name" outside of the limited subset of people who'd find it interesting.  Perhaps it may, eventually, become large enough by some of your 'guidelines' for inclusion - ironically enough, guidelines that I now (and likely will then, too, if they're not changed in the meantime (which at least in the case of notability appears likely)) object to.  Anyway, I hope YOUR 2006 goes well...  ciao   BobbyRay 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB and the contributor seems to think wikipedia is an advertising vehicle. Bobbyray, that Wikipedia is the ONLY place you've advertised doesn't make it any better; it makes it much worse. I don't go to Encyclopedia Britannica to look for something that has never been published anywhere else. That's what the Yellow Pages are for. Longwinded responses aren't going to help your article, it's doomed. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself what wikipedia is, rather than attacking everything it is. The reason for removing it has nothing to do with you being the founder, and here's a tip: Martyrdom never works here. You're just digging your own grave deeper with every comment you write. --Golbez 15:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * golbez, as you eloquently demonstrated, i've come to realize that no matter what I say, it will be misinterpreted and used against keeping the article. I know what wikipedia is and what it's for.  My intent wasn't to advertise.  My objections are related to fairness, mainly related to the standards being applied and how.  But due to me being the author and being the founder of the project that's the subject of it, my position as defender of the article is untenable - nothing I can say can help, and anything I say can be turned around to appear self-serving.  There are also bigger issues, but I won't go into them here.  The most frustrating thing is my integrity being called into question and being unable to defend myself.  Anyway, I accept the decision - that doesn't make me a martyr, just a realist.  As you said, 'it's doomed', and I see that.  Delete it.  Have a good one. BobbyRay 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nominator, per sock meatpuppet issues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * does the concept 'piling on' mean anything to you guys? geez. BobbyRay 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the concept of "stop filling up Wikipedia with your nonsense!" mean aything to you? DreamGuy 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as vanityspamityegocruft. 22:45, 1 January 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.