Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet


 * 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 No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I have some doubts about the notability of this asperger's website. It had a couple of news items a while ago but Google News doesn't bring up anything now, and pretty much all the Google hits seem to be on forums. Certainly any coverage in reliable secondary sources was fairly minor and transitory so I'd propose delete on the grounds of WP:NOT. Snthdiueoa (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Keep. WP is a very well known site.ColdRedRain (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB, sources provided are relatively trivial. Lankiveil (complaints 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. The Washington Post article is brief but not trivial. --Eastmain (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me quote WP:N: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage." A couple of news articles at the time may be newsworthy but it needs more than just two or three to establish notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been written about in several news sources, has appeared on TV, and has interviewed many famous people. I'd say it's notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Several news sources" -- Which ones? There are only three cited in the article, and apart from that, Google News brings up nothing. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide us with some evidence to back up that assertion please? Snthdiueoa (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's already there. The news sites. And William Freund was real, the link was only broken because Fox News only maintains their articles for a certain period of time. I will do a google news archive search right now, and report back. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A search for "William Freund" (in quotes to avoid every single William and every single Freund) produced about 460 results. (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22william+freund%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) Most are pay-only. However, this one from Guardian, is free, and quite clearly asserts notablity. I shall add citation now. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's about William Freund, not Wrong Planet, and that's not up for discussion here. My contention is that the website itself has not had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish long term notability. With two exceptions, or at most three, all coverage of the site has been relatively trivial. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, it needs to establish that it is notable in its own right, independently of Mr Freund. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * William Freund is not the only reason wrong planet is notable. It has interviewed many famous people, and has been in the news for it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an assertion that's been made a few times, but no-one has come up with anything of substance to back it up. And as for interviewing famous people, that doesn't hold a lot of weight I'm afraid -- Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N, WP:WEB) specifically require that multiple third party reliable sources have written about the subject in sufficient detail. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And they have, during the William Freund incident. Would the Titanic have been notable if it hadn't sunk? Maybe, maybe not. But since it sunk, it is clearly notable. It is the same here. You could make the argument that without William Freund, wrongplanet wouldn't be notable, and you could make the argument that it still would be. That is irrelevant. Freund makes the site notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're arguing "notability is inherited" there -- WP:NOTINHERITED is quite clear that it doesn't work that way on Wikipedia. Or are you also saying that there is a lot of reporting out there that I've missed that covers Wrong Planet itself? If so, could you please post some references and sources so that we can verify that it is actually notable, rather than just taking your word for it? Snthdiueoa (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that one event can make something notable Look at the Ford Theater article. Is there anything other than the assasination of president Lincoln that makes Ford Theater notable? Probably not. But it's still notable. Same here. 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs)
 * So you're now arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on top of WP:NOTINHERITED? Sorry, that's another of those pesky Arguments to avoid in deletion debates I'm afraid. Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was making an analogy to prove my point, not saying that one exists, so the other should. There's a difference. And how about saying what makes this non-notable instead of saying why my arguments violate wiki policY?Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence of coverage of the Wrong Planet website itself by reliable, secondary sources for us to be able to independently verify its notability. Simple as that. Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous argument. You misunderstand the rule. William Freund made Wrong Planet notable because he got it in the news. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? I've just removed one of the references you added to the article because it doesn't mention Wrong Planet at all. Even if it did, and you're talking about articles like the one in the Guardian, those are all what we call "trivial" references. Or are you just advocating that we ignore all rules or something? Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Just sufficient sourcing,but it is enough for notability.DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So far, we have non-trivial coverage in one secondary source -- the Washington Post, where the article is barely long enough even for that. The mention in the Guardian is trivial, and I would say the same thing about Slashdot (which is about Bram Cohen: WP is only secondary). PRweb is a press release, i.e. a primary source, and the only other reference is an article on Wrong Planet itself: also a primary source. If you think this is within the definition of "non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources," then fair enough, but personally I still think it's pushing it to the limit. Snthdiueoa (talk) 07:06, 24 January 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.