Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coredesat (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 19 October 2006 (→JAKAZiD: abstaining from the debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 16 October 18 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

17 October 2006

JAKAZiD

I wish to have the JAKAZiD article Restored/Undeleted, I feel it was unfairly deleted, it contained factual data about the Arist and was not Spam. ShadowmanX 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For benefit of other reviewers, article was speedy deleted by User:Blnguyen with the summary "self web-recorded musician". Endorse deletion unless notability per WP:MUSIC is asserted and verified. This is about the creator of the Internet Cillit Bang and Esure videos, which are funny and arguably merit a mention in those articles (which they've got), but absent third-party coverage they and their creator do not merit articles themselves. However I would encourage administrators to at least link and refer to WP:CSD when speedy deleting articles for the benefit of users like ShadowmanX. Even cryptic shorthand like "CSD A7" is better than something that really just looks like the administrator's opinion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. It's a contested speedy, 'nuff said. Even if it wasn't enough, the cached version indicates assertions of notability, such as the television commercials. Clearly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All speedy deletions are contested by at least one person. The word WP:CSD uses when it says that some articles should be sent to AfD is "controversial", not "contested". And he hasn't made any television commercials - he makes parodies of other people's which are self-published. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a discussion at CSD about it, then, because that's what some believe there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a free country, they can believe what they like. But this and other deletion reviews show that being contested by the author is not sufficient for speedy deletion to be 'controversial'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia

Request for the deletion of Lostpedia to be reviewed. I appreciate the article was previously deleted but on this occassion was removed without any kind of discussion. I personally had added the {{hangon}} template, yet the article was still swiftly removed despite my requests for review first. Please could the article be restored, if only to allow actual free debate --Nickb123 3rd 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {hangon}} has pretty much no value on reposting deleted content. Those must come here first. Fan-1967 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The linked deletion review is for an old version of the article, and main grounds for deletion was "shameless advertising". The new version I made today was an attempt to overcome this, however it was still removed despite my pleas for actual formal voting. Therefore, I request the content to be restored, if only for to be deleted after a real debate. The content, I believe, is objective and causes no offence to anyone, so I don't see why it cannot remain until a proper conclusion is made --Nickb123 3rd 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AFD. I've got conflicting thoughts on this. On one hand, it's lostcruft. On the other, it passes one of the notability guidelines from my interpetration. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - cruft IMHO, does not appear to fit WEB -- Tawker 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Patent cruft with no encyclopedic value except bringing hits to lostpedia to earn you money, non notable fansite. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Wikipedia is not the keeper of the term wiki, which is where this debate is headed, and as such should not decide how other sites use it, and how the content is defined. LOST is a very unique show in its structure of building up the story line, and generating fan speculation. It relies on the theories of the fans involved, and as MatthewFenton a former Lostpedia vandal puts it "fan cruft". Furthermore, all fan speculation is clearly marked as such, and is clearly defined seperately from the article about the episode. The article fits WEB and Notability requirements also. To add to this debate. Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha, which the known Lostpedia vandal User:MatthewFenton edits are allowed on the site, under less notability than Lostpedia, yet are allowed to stay on the site. --Plkrtn 07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you like to cite me being a vandal? and you might find because Memory Alpha is notable and is also one of the largest wikis and in the top 100,000 websites. I dont not know about Star Wars wiki as i do not endorse Star Wars existance. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton</wnoiki> and <nowiki>http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/User:MatthewFenton. Furthermore, the Alexa.com 100,000 websites not only applies to the whole of Wikia, not just Memory Alpha but it has already been deemed as an unsuitable marker of notability on Wikipedia. Google Trends also shows that Lostpedia gets more search hits than Memory Alpha [1] --Plkrtn 07:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • All that google trend shows is that someone likes google bombing - and the Alexa rank is for memory alphas domain not wikias. Also its patently pathetic deeming me a vandal, you must of been truely scared when i brought to light all your copyrigth violations. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are diverting the point of this discussion once again. Under Lostpedia policy you were a vandal, and having been banned you obviously have an agenda for the deletion of Lostpedia on here. Further more, Memory Alpha's Alexa Page rank (3,344) [2] is exactly the same as Wikia.com's (3,344) [3] clearly showing that the sub domain is not taken into account when looking for traffic details. Ignoring of course the fact that Alexa.com is not valid reasoning for notability. Even if taken into account, Lostpedia is currently ranked at 15,034 [4] compared to Memory Alpha's, via its domain being 26,306 [5]. --Plkrtn 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse does not meet WP:WEB. —ptk✰fgs 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion users above may not be aware that it does actually meet WP:WEB criteria, specifically #1 & #2 (and only one is required per notability definition), as lostpedia has been referenced by Entertainment Weekly, Time Magazine, and the LA Times. --192.138.70.245 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Notability from the Lost Experience official game means Lostpedia has more press than e.g. Wokieepedia, which is allowed an article --Nickb123 3rd 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Same participants, same lack of discussion. The votes here of previous participants will simply reflect those of previous acrimonious discussions. That said, Alexa is no longer part of Notability; nonetheless Memory Alpha (a frequently edited article of one of the editors above) is cited in the discussion here; Lostpedia ranks higher (15034) than Memory Alpha (26306) in Alexa. Also note same particpants above in a push-button response to peripherally related delete afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost further reading. See also relevant discussion by the same parties at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites Due to lack of productive discussion this issue may require mediation with a neutral party.--Santaduck 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not invisible. I hope you will look again before concluding that this is just more of the same participants. I only got involved in this when Plktrn made repeated bad-faith nominations of other articles in some kind of attempt to make a point about this being deleted.
I don't care about Alexa, or Memory Alpha, or any of that. I have one question:
Where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources commenting on Lostpedia? Please answer that and we may continue. —ptk✰fgs 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. http://www.scifi.com/sfw/sites/sfw13095.html - SciFi.com site of the week, July 5, 2006 – which by the way is a par to Wookiepedia’s “notability”
  2. http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/WatermarkStudentMinistries_119/djdanfinalcut.mp3 – the DJ Dan final broadcast, official Lost canon made by ABC.com and the producers of the show. Lostpedia is quoted: “And just listen to this ball of lies they're chucking at our heads on the famed geek-out Internet site, the Lostpedia. That's right, it's a wiki-wiki site.”
  3. List of other references, including primary as well as secondary topic can be found by searching “Media Coverage” on the pedia site (I can’t link to it as its been blacklisted apparently?)
--Nickb123 3rd 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable secondary sources for notability cited per above (EW, LA Times), largely ignored in the past. Here is one very recent citation in Time; there has been one other in the past, and I'll search for the other 2 mag citations when I get a chance. -192.138.70.245 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions on sci-fi.com and in the Lost Experience are non-trivial. And the last time I debated this issue I wasn't a SysOp there, so that is completely irrelevant --Nickb123 3rd 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also I realise comparing wikis with articles isn't the best course of action, but isn't it ridiculous considering how apparently strict Wikipedia is that ones with no sources are allowed pages but ones where contributors are actually trying to highlight notability are not. Thus, can you blame us for protesting when clearly there are hypocritical standards --Nickb123 3rd 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not reliable sources. The sources presented are either non-trivial or reliable. To count, there must be multiple sources which are both non-trivial and reliable. And to avoid the vanispamcruftisement clause the request should come from someone who is (a) not a sysop on Lostpedia and (b) has a meaningful edit history on Wikipedia, which rather counts you out on both grounds. Also, WP:ITSNOTFAIR is not a policy or guideline for inclusion. Guy 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Meaningful Edit History" - says who? This is ad hominem. Either the sources are notable + non-trivial or they aren't, period. What does someone's edit history have to do with it? Bdrasin 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What consitutes a reliable source then? God? The Pope? Anyone else, because if multiple major news companies aren't reliable, and the creators of the show aren't reliable. Who is? --90.192.92.77 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:MatthewFenton who removed a delete request on the Memory Alpha article, but added the delete request to this one, edits on Memory Alpha. I see lots of double standards here. --90.192.92.77 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its amazing though that with such in-depth guidelines you brush off the notion of "ITSNOTFAIR" as you call it, as there is evidently resident bias amongst editors if one is allowed to stay whilst another isn't (though are on the same level in all other respects). Also, as said, your first point is non-applicable as you know full well I was debating this months ago, and have been made a SysOp only very recently. I know you keep saying about notability, but by that same rule all the other wiki sites with articles should fall, but why don't they? Because some editors "like" that one or are a part of it. I suspect the other wiki articles were made by someone from the site too - would you prefer someone completely unaffiliated to write about your website for instance? --Nickb123 3rd 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
by that same rule all the other wiki sites with articles should fall, but why don't they?
They have multiple non-trivial reliable sources backing their notability. And if they don't, then they will be removed in AFD if it's brought up.
Because some editors "like" that one or are a part of it. I suspect the other wiki articles were made by someone from the site too - would you prefer someone completely unaffiliated to write about your website for instance?
They are? Are you sure? Creating articles about one's own website is strongly discouraged here. I would definitely prefer to see articles written by uninvolved third parties, citing non-trivial reliable secondary sources. Check the references at Memory Alpha — in particular, look for an ISBN and a page number. Yes, Memory Alpha is just barely over the line. But notability isn't about being almost as tall as the guy ahead of you; you must be this tall to ride. —ptk✰fgs 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the citations for Wookieepedia though, other than a Sci-fi.com mention? And as a matter of fact those in question that lack notability were nominated for deletion on similar grounds, but were instantly reverted with the individuals placing the nomination being accused of vandalism. As I stated, rather hypocritical, with a touch of favouritism --Nickb123 3rd 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont disrupt wikipedia to make a point, period. - This isnt about StarWarsWikia, its about the nn Lostpedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No its about certain users having an agenda against Lostpedia, while allowing other sites that are far less notable to have entries. Its not about Lostpedia anymore, its about double standards and a lack of editorial integrity. --90.192.92.77 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an agenda. I've never seen Lost. I don't care. I want the collateral damage AFDs and crap to stop. Notability for web sites is defined in WP:WEB. Lostpedia does not appear to meet those standards. Yes, there are other web sites here that also don't. We're not discussing those here, though. "Getting" an article on Wikipedia is not an entitlement and it's not fair or unfair. Please read through WP:WEB and you'll see that this isn't about doling out articles for "blessed" sites that "we" like, or about deleting sites that we "don't like". —ptk✰fgs 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except Lostpedia DOES meet the requirements of WP:WEB. A precident has been set by allowing Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha etc on. Especially when afd's are rejected for these sites, including by editors like User:MatthewFenton who deleted the current Lostpedia article on the same grounds that he defended Memory Alpha's inclusion. Its double standards of the highest order. The problems will stop if other fan wikis are removed, or Lostpedia gets added. The status quo is completely unacceptable. --90.192.92.77 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There desire to get an article here seems so strong that it leads me to believe they need the traffic from Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I just think a site with 31,000,000 page views compared to Wookieepedia's 8,200,000 [6] and Memory Alpha's 16,800,000 [7] should be listed if those two are also being listed, as it meets the criteria of WP:WEB --90.192.92.101 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least that would be even handed, which at the moment is not the case. Especially when someone requested a delete on the Memory Alpha article and User:MatthewFenton removed it. Complete double standards. --90.192.92.77 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued Deletion *BUT* Lostpedia.com should be removed from the spam blacklist and a link added to the Lost (TV Series) article. This is how other fan run wikis are handeled on Wikipeda. It is a great way of keeping fancruft out of the Encyclopedia. "Go to the fan wiki" we can say. -Dr Haggis - Talk 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, meets WP:WEB under criteria #1. Site was used by official representatives of The Lost Experience to distribute an official clue/glyph. Additional References/notes:
It should also be noted that MattewFenton, who ojbects to the existence of this article seems to be on a vendetta against the site after being banned. Lostpedia does not need or require additional traffic from wikipedia, but wishes to work in tandem with it. Jimbo Wales has an account on Lostpedia, and reached out to us so we can work together with Lost.wikia.com to combat vandalism and to discuss issues that we have in common.
Please also see Wikipedia's list of wikis for additional precedent on articles for wiki's hosted outside of Wikipedia. That article contains only links to wikis that with their own entry in Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_17&oldid=82335652"