Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigovernment (2nd 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   delete. None of the suggestions for keeping this article have addressed the problem of notability. Shereth 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself, which has a source or two, doesn't suggest anything notable about this (really, really bad) idea. I shudder to think what it would be like if the regulars in AfD were in control of a nuclear weapon.  Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While I agree with Mansford the idea of the article is bad, I vote for keeping and developing to document the bad idea and how it progresses in their College, so to "provide a model for other colleges and universities" of what NOT to do, as it is so open to abuse, and may prove to be a great overhead to be managed effectively. --Mokhov (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with both editors here, but you can't write about a train wreck until the first dent appears in the locomotive. Wait until the source develop. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that's a quote worth repeating. Both Mokhov and Lonely are correct that I'm not saying that we can't write an article about a "bad idea" for government.  At the moment, the issue is notability of the idea; I agree with Otolemur that it hasn't progressed to the point where people are talking about something of this nature.   My personal opinion is that we are living in the "Golden Age of Wiki", witnessing a change in society that wasn't possible before high speed internet.  I'm sure there are other people who would, kinda sorta, agree with the Golden Age of Wiki suggestion.  However, until someone publishes articles, writes a masters or doctoral thesis, authors a bestseller about the impact of the wiki... there isn't a dent.  How soon before we see the first dent in the locomotive?  I give it two more years.  On July 15, 2010, we'll see if I was right.  Mandsford (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThe article deals with a real phenomena, see http://www.mass-collaboration.net/wiki/index.php?title=Massively_Collaborative_Direct_Democracy Fred Talk 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain. The name does not seem to be used in academic journals, and only in one book. The idea is interesting, but so far seems rather ORish. I'd say userfy, or essayfy... but give it a year or two and I am sure it will be recreated with better sources. And Fred, with all due respect, a wiki essay theory does not make - the concept of a Massively Collaborative Direct Democracy is as ORish as that of a wikigovernment, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like an important type of possible government and application of collaboration style. QuantumShadow (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. One example doesn't make the concept notable.  The sourcing just isn't here for this at this point.  Maybe it will be in a while, but WP:NOT applies there -- we should delete it now, we can always restore it later. Mango juice talk 17:42, 23 July 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.