Talk:Lostpedia

I would like to know why this article isn't allowed to be created. There are articles for Memory Alpha, with the justification that Star Trek writers (of which there are none anymore) use Memory Alpha. The creators of LOST used Wikipedia as part of its online alternative reality game over the summer, and it was actually referenced in one of the podcasts related to the show created by the writers, the DJ Dan podcast, where a fictional character within the world of LOST says that he is incredulous to the idea that Lostpedia.com believe he is fictional. The character DJ Dan being played by one of the writers of LOST during Season 2 (Javier Marxauch). The justification of Memory Alpha being in the top 25,000 sites as considered by Alexa.com is a falicy as it has been rejected by Wikipedia as a source of credibility. Alexa.com's ranking for Memory Alpha also includes the whole of Wikia.com not just Memory Alpha.

Furthermore the user that requested the speedy deletion also contributes to the Memory Alpha article, and is a known spammer of the Lostpedia site.

I do not understand why Lostpedia is not deemed worthy to have its own article but Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia can have their own articles. I don't believe it is an issue of bias, as Jimmy Wales uses Lostpedia as well as Wikia.com's Lost Wiki. --90.192.92.77 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to my surprise, Lostpedia meets the web notability criteria, as it has been awarded [Website of the Week], had an article written about it by The Guardian newspaper in the UK [[1]] and has been mentioned by many publications including:

• [Today]
• [Chicago Tribune]
• [Wars.com by Science Fiction author Dan Wallace]

--90.192.92.77 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Should i compare your Lostpedia to Memory Alpha? You'll also find much more notable wikis then "Lostpedia" like BattlestarWiki do not get an article here either. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a web directory. Guy 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha.. what vanity, you posted a blog believing your selfs to be published... thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So you disregard one mark of notability but maintain all the others are valid then? After all you have several times, removed delete requests from Memory Alpha, but are the most recent requester of the delete of Lostpedia's entry. --90.192.92.77 22:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, there all blogs and the scifi one does not even work. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the blog of an individual its the blog of large corporate newspapers, which are just as valid as their paper counteparts. Furthermore I have no problem with the site of the week link, but if someone needs to contact SciFi.com I'm sure they have evidence available. Plus you forget the whole being part of the show and recognised by the writers thing that gives it further notability. --90.192.92.77 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Unfortunately individuals seem to delete this page immediately after its made, even when they are pleaded with to actually have discussion first. Equally, this discussion page is routinely deleted to stop anyone actually debating. This article was once deleted, but is it not possible for something to then justify an article in the future? Now, I ask can we please have some debate here:

The main reason for Lostpedia's removal is that of "notability". However, why is it that Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia and Comixpedia can all have articles and Lostpedia cannot? None of these sites have any notability at all apart from the odd mention in Sci-fi.com, whilst Lostpedia has also been addressed on that site as well as from official representatives of the Lost Experience (an alternate reality game directly run by ABC and the creators of Lost itself). Thus, how does Lostpedia lack notability, even when not comparing it to other wiki sites given an article. It seems the rules are completely informal at Wikipedia as one user suggests on Talk:Wookieepedia when discussing possible deletion. All arguments against this page centre around the initial content on the page which was deleted. This is accepted as, by account, it was advertising the website shamefully (though those who have seen the content maintain this shameful plugging is overstated by many). However, why can no other attempt to rewrite the article without having their work mysteriously get deleted. It is difficult for people to vote when they cannot see the new content, and its removal will never allow real debate, as arguably one cannot make an informed decision on this matter until they read for themselves "what the fuss is all about".

So, in summary, I ask that the article please be restored and nominated for deletion formally rather than speedily removed. The current version deleted today which I created was objective and non-offensive, and so I do not see why it cannot be left whilst a discussion is held, as it causes no harm. Also, I realise one deletion discussion was done right at the start, but why can't another one be held at a later date? Finally, I ask that this comment is not immediately deleted by an administrator (which has already happened about six times). Thank you and I hope we can actually have a real discussion about this issue --Nickb123 3rd 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV,articles areant undeleted to go to AfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)