Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia community (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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is redundant and is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article DXRAW 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Already nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. Result was "no consensus": Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_community


 * Strong keep Heavily and adequetly sourced now. Too large to fork back into Wikipedia by far per forking policies and practice. - Denny 13:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; self-referential. Tizio 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you see the huge variety of sources? Passes BIO/N/ATT, but self-ref is not a valid deletion reason under policy. - Denny 13:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO the threshold of notability for Wikipedia-related subjects should be set considerably higher than for other subject. Writing about things one knowns directly (rather than starting from the sources) easily leads to lack of perspective and bias. Tizio 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent point, I very much agree. -- Ned Scott 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Something being hard to write is hardly a reason to delete it. - Denny 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that writing on this subject is not particularly hard. The hard part is to evaluate whether what's written it is good. If this article is written by a member of the community and evaluated by other members of the same community, a bias (in whatever direction) would be hardly noticed. For general articles like Wikipedia that will be countered by the high visibility of the article; the same cannot be said for all articles in User:Tizio/Wikipedia; some of them have very few editors. Tizio 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - yes it is self-referential to an extent. But with things like the Essjay controversy, WP has been written about in third party sources. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into the main Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What policy based deletion reason? It fails not one policy requirement. Also, its too big to merge into Wikipedia. - Denny 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both articles could use a trim in certain areas, and the topic of the community is important enough to push something else off Wikipedia and to a second page. A merge makes a lot of sense to me. -- Ned Scott 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid self-references for a start. It seems to me that while an overview of the wikipedia community makes sense in the Wikipedia article, an article of its own is a bit much.  As Ned pointed out, both articles could stand a trim. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying, no matter how much coverage notability the community of editors get, no article because it's self-referential? That's backwards logic, and a made-up exemption for a specific topic that is now provenly notable. - Denny 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep seems to be referenced adaquately now. Yes it's a bit silly that we have such extensive Wikipedia topics, but what do you really expect? ASR was never meant to remove any references to Wikipedia, just unreferencable ones. If the media cares about something, Wikipedia can have an article on it... apparently the media cares about the WIkipedia community for whatever reason. It would be biased actually to remove a properly referenced article only because it was about Wikipedia. At the very least this should be merged if possible. --W.marsh 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete, most of the important stuff is covered in existing articles. As a core element of how Wikipedia works, I'm not sure it makes sense to split the sub topic to it's own article. The Wikipedia community is how Wikipedia works. Being a self-reference is not an issue, so that has no factor in my position (see WP:SELF, where it talks more about style-type concerns for downstream use). References are also not an issue, as it is well referenced. However, it doesn't make sense to me to split such a topic, and much of what it covers (that other articles do not) is trivial. -- Ned Scott 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the concensus is to merge, can we please not delete the current article and leave the growth/sources etc. in history? If it needs merging (after all) it can always later fork back out if necessary. - Denny 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is merged, then the current article is not deleted, but is available in the history. FrozenPurpleCube 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep O.K. Lets review: There is a differentiation in opinion or lack of understanding on the interpretation of policies herein, setforth — IMHO.
 * 1) First: WP:SELF (self-referencing) is a logical fallacy argument in this case. We are not self-referencing. See the examples provided on the guideline page for a better understanding. Additionally, the article is too big to merge and will only expand in time.
 * 2) Second: There is not a small amount of coverage on the community, there is a bunch of coverage. Some of the references have already been provided in the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary references available on the topic, we aren't not quoting ourselves or referencing from Wikipedia or a mirror cite. Many sources have been established in the body of the article. Please overivew and read the references and additional sources.
 * 3) Third: The article has a reasonable potential to grow into an expanded and yet even more informative article. A redirect or merge would be restricting.
 * 4) Fourth: Every year the community will become more notable. After all, we are the ones who built Wikpedia from the gound up. That is something to be inherently proud of too. The subject matter is notable, important, and gives insight to the reader about the fellowship of the Wikipedia community.
 * 5) Fifth: The community is a different subject than and from Wikipedia. The community is the people who collaborate and work together to present quality articles. For example, Wikipedia mainspace articles, is the presented work. In a nutshell, the community is the group of people who edit and volunteer their time. However, Wikipedia is the content of the project's work. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For topics like international politics, the press may be sufficiently reliable to be considered a good source; for topics like "what's going on the Internet", it's a different story; see the Essjay controversy (another good target for deletion), for example. Even assuming that the sources are good, writing an article requires selecting the sources and organizing the material; that's where bias and lack of persepective may be introduced. Tizio 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I suppose this article could use some more improvement, but conceptually, it is not a problem, so I remain convinced it shold be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mr. Guru and the numerous references supporting the article. Notable subject, well referenced, and not the same as Wikipedia itself. Edison 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for reason mentioned above, SqueakBox 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SqueakBox. Acalamari 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Because it is a vital page of the representation of the Wikipedia community. Effer 22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No kidding. Isn't that the name of the article? So is the article of My Space a vital representation of My Space? --FateClub 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm pretty sure this is a topic that's encyclopedic. I'm not exactly happy with the current article, but that's no reason to delete it.  --Haemo 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - hoax, no reliable source to verify existence of this group. Aleksi Peltola 03:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This has to be joke statement. - Denny 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Aleksi was thinking to the Wikipedia cabal :-) Tizio 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, ha. - Denny 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Still suggesting Merge to English Wikipedia or possibly Move to Wikipedia:. If kept under this title, this has to be either renamed ("English Wikipedia community") or expanded to cover other Wikipedias. As it is, it's a bit weak. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Expanding it to cover all Wikipedia editor communities is a great idea. - Denny 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per various arguements above, and I'll also advise expanding this article to cover the non-english wikipedia communities. Presumably there must have been articles on this regarding the german wikipedia at least.  --Xyzzyplugh 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with Quackguru. Shindo9 Hikaru  01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, or are we writing articles about the You Tube Community, My Space Community, Friendster Community.$$... \rightarrow -\infty$$. A community? Are we gathering in a leased building with robes and candles, do we chant? We are just users of the same website. Also, why is the list of references longer than the article itself? --FateClub 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the sources exist to demonstrate their notability, yes, we should have an article on all of those. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable, too soon to nominate again anyway. Everyking 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per Mr. Guru -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has recently expanded. Please overview the current version. I recommend the merge tag be removed because the community is an independent topic and most votes are for keep. Consensus is for keep and not merge. Wikipedia is about content. However, the Wikipedia community is about people, which is to be respected, and not swallowed by 'net monster of' pedia. I call on the fellowship of the community to remove the silly merge tag. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/contribs ) 17:48, 6 April 2007 (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.