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 Angela (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 21 October 2006 (→Lostpedia). 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]
    • Contested PRODs need to go to AfD, not contested speedies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Under the rules established when WP:CSD was approved as a deletion process, any speedy-deletion contested in good-faith is to be restored and immediately listed to AFD (or more properly, XfD). That rule was made explicit for PRODs because PROD is not subject to the deliberately narrow criteria definitions - but it has always been true for speedy-deletions.
        The judgment call has always been whether or not the challenge was made in good-faith. Requests by the author for undeletion of an autobiographical article are rightly viewed with some skepticism. So while Jeff is incorrect that "It's a contested speedy" is automatically sufficient, Sam and Zoe are also expressing restrictions on the speedy deletion process which are not supported by our established rules and precedent. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 20 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]

  • AfD. Whispering 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD was endorsed in a DRV in July: Review. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 18 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]
  • Endorse deletion, no new evidence presented since last deletion review. Nickb123 3rd (talk · contribs) = Nickb II (talk · contribs) = Nickb123 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account who appears to be having some difficulty understanding part of the phrase multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (as well as being a sysop on Lostpedia, see www.lostpedia.com/wiki/User_talk:Nickb123). The argument that "Wookiepedia exists therefore Lostpedia must exist" is begging the question and ignoring the policy basis for the original deletion, which has yet to be addressed in this DRV. For more Lostcruft see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost further reading. Can't people find something real to write about? Guy 14:38, 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]
    • 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]
  • Endorse Deletion, now if we could just get rid of the other wikicruft that doesn't meet WP:WEB but is supported by a Pokemon-esque fanbase (Wookiepedia & Memory Alpha)...--Isotope23 18:58, 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:
    July 5, 2006 - Site of the Week - by: Ken Newquist of SciFi.com
    June 20, 2006 - It's not on television, but I'm still 'Lost' - by: Liz Kohman of St. Cloud Times
    May 2, 2006 - Still Lost? - by: Jason Deans of Guardian Unlimited
    Was listed in the Official Lost magazine (Issue 6, Page 73)
    • www.lostpedia.com Ridiculously comprehensive encyclopedia of all things Lost. Uses the open source wiki system so is constantly updated.
    In an article discussing the growth of the wikipedia software, Lostpedia was featured out of thousands of other wikis [8].
    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.
  • Comment As the salting admin, it's difficult for me to give a fair opinion. However, I would like to AfD the article, as suggested, because I don't see any harm in doing so and it will deal with any complaints, in either direction. Thanks. —Xyrael / 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rewritten version was sufficiently different from the version deleted as a result of the AFD discussion that speedy-deletion criterion G4 (recreated content) should not have been applied. On the other hand, criterion A7 (no assertion of notability) probably did apply at the time of deletion. Assertions have been made here. Whether or not those assertions will carry the day is a question for AFD to sort out. Overturn speedy-deletion and immediately list to AFD. Rossami (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I do not watch Lost, Star Trek or any other shows that have been listed as having major wikis, but I'll add in my 2 cents in saying that, arguably, Lostpedia is notable. Let's review the criteria for web notability, and see how Lostpedia measures up:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

  • Lostpedia has been the main focus of online newspaper articles from the St. Cloud Times [9], and The Guardian Unlimited [10].

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

  • Lostpedia won the award for 'Site of the Week' [11] from Scifi.com, as has Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia.

3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

  • Lostpedia was started by a fan from San Francisco, and has contributors from all over the world, reaching from (but not limited to) The UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, Israel and Sweden. Reaching over 30,000,000 pageviews in it's slightly over 1 year history, it outranks Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia.

So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability. Lostpedia should have a page here to sit alongside Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia, and put an end to one of the most hotly debated deletions I've seen here.

Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards. --Out-of-focus 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I believe this meets WP:WEB and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis. Angela. 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_17&oldid=82766864"