Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd 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 Delete. With few exceptions, the "keep" arguments are weak, as noted by WLU at the end, and do not address the notability guideline issues that have been highlighted by several editors. Sandstein (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Wiki

Fails WP:WEB. The research indicated is only an article from a PhD CANDIDATE and was not published in any journal. As for the AOL mention, if AOL was to have a page detailing the top 20 fan sites for every TV show out there, 99% of them would be rejected outright as NN. It should be considered a link directory, which means it cannot be used to satisfy #1 Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of notability assertations here, but I still don't think it's enough to meet notability guidelines for a website, especially given that the sources are either primary or trivial in nature. On top of that, two different articles on this subject have been deleted before -- though I don't think it's time to break out the saltshaker yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that make it a speedy candidate as "recreation of deleted content" or is this version of the article different from the previously deleted ones?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last version was deleted in July '06; this version was created in November '07. I doubt this is the same content that got deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RS. This article has been deleted twice at AFD already, and I don't think its claim to notability has become any better since then. Terraxos (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content, or delete regularly: I'm sure it's an utterly groovy site, but Wikipedia is not a web directory or a directory of wiki's. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment/Observation: By the logic noted above, then you should probably take a look at The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5, which has absolutely no citations of any kind (aside from a comment from JMS and a note from TV Guide) yet has seemed to have avoided WP's chopping block literally since that article's inception in 2006. Further, Memory Alpha is written more like a POV puff-piece than anything else, with a citation to being a noted website on "Sci Fi Channel's weekly newsletter" (of which they have a one candidate per week, or 52 a year, which does add up -- and probably 90% of them aren't "notable" either, to boot). Also, Nick's comments about the AOL mention are dubious at best. Unless he can prove with empirical evidence that AOL has run numerous "Top 10" or "Top 20" fansite lists, then there's no reason that the AOL reference to the website is invalid. Since he made the assertion with the word if, he's FUD-ing/weaseling out of his point a bit, at least from an objective point of view. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment/disclaimer: I should probably note that I am involved with the Battlestar Wiki as its project leader. Further, I believe that all three sites (BW and the two I mentioned) do warrant entires on Wikipedia. (This is the problem with deletionists, you aim to get rid of all the good stuff when you should really be putting your efforts in developing articles to higher quality standards. But I may be speaking to those who don't care to listen on that issue, so I'll save my breath.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Joe, you might want to look into WP:WAX; other pages are irrelevant, but you are welcome to review WP:AFD and nominate the other page for deletion. WLU (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm aware of WP:WAX and all the other WP:ACRONYMS that people refer to (and acronyms of its nature should really be avoided, since it's very much "newspeakian"). But anyway, were I to nominate those other two articles for deletion, I would more than likely be labeled as a "disruptor" of Wikipedia for trying to prove a point and some other worthless string of acronyms. Having been an active administrator on Wikipedia, I am fully aware of all the double standards employed by the cliques (glorified "World of Warcraft" clans, really, and that's sad) vying for domination of their POV on Wikipedia, which really goes against the spirit of "neutral" point of view. My point in bringing up those two articles is really to point out the fact that Wikipedia's rules are not universally or consistently applied as they absolutely need to be... But the two articles I bring up -- primarily Memory-Alpha -- can be deleted under the same reasoning as explained in this very "AFD". Now, the question remains, do I want to run Memory-Alpha through AFD? No. Because I believe the article deserves to exist on Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my reply would be as my initial comment - review WP:AFD and nominate it for deletion. Fortunately the acronym is wikilinked, so you can review it. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. The link for the wiki is on the article Battlestar Galactica. I would suggest a redirect to Battlestar Galactica#External links. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Beaudoin. DrWho42 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mikebar (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real assertion of notability. A bare mention on one independent site, a whole bunch of citations to blogs and the battlestar wiki itself, a conference presentation (?) privately published and apparently no mention in any actual journal or book of conference proceedings, and a broken (?) link to the AOL external site. That last one, were it working, might let it pass WP:N, depending on its contents. If it is working, and the only mention is the one sentence, which lists numerous other sites, then I withdraw my previous tentative support. Aside from the one possibly viable source, I see no assertion of independent interest in reliable sources. After 3 deletions, I'd say salt the earth; recreation can occur on a sub-page and be moved after an admin clears it. WLU (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The link to AOL isn't broken and hasn't been changed since the AFD template was added, so why didn't you take the trouble to click it and see for yourself? For the record, the AOL link lists 10 (not 20, as suggested earlier) Battlestar Galactica fan sites that stand out in some way (like "Best image resource"). Battlestar Wiki is mentioned as being "Most comprehensive". Every site is on a separate page with a screenshot and some 50 words about the site. --217.121.125.222 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is working now, not sure why it wasn't in the past. BW still gets three lines. Insufficient in my mind. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said above, the AOL link is much better than most people here seem to assume. Toton's paper was presented at MiT5, an event organized by (you guessed it) MIT (this is more or less coincidental, however: MiT5 stands for Media in Transition 5), and was published on MIT's web site. Toton is indeed a PhD candidate, but that's not as meaningless as the nominator suggests (people who aren't believed to have PhD potential aren't accepted as a PhD candidate). Also, the article has been expanded recently to mention Bradley Thompson's involvement and Wikia's buyout attempt. --217.121.125.222 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toton's paper isn't published aside from the on-line vesion, indicating no editorial oversight once presented, and wasn't considered worth printing in any anthology that came out of the conference. Many of the sources are to blogs and battlestar wiki itself. Given the AOL link, it's borderline meeting WP:WEB, but nudging to delete. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it really isn't all that notable, plus its been deleted before.--UESPArules (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page reads like a very good justification for having it as an external link at the Battlestar Galactica page, which it is already, but with no description, so... is there a "merge into external link description?" Quoting first paragraph:

External links

Battlestar Wiki - an encyclopedic reference for topics related to the Battlestar Galactica fictional universe, both the original and re-imagined series.

Keep. Battlestar Wiki is a well-known wikia. Tremendously popular among fans of BSG, which includes millions. -- Crevaner (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. Ausir (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact that a notable member of the show's writing/production staff uses it for "official communiques" suggests that it has a more-than-trivial connection to the show. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe and Spencerian (on Talk:Battlestar Wiki#Deletion). It is very notable and should exist equally with Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia. Blue cadet84 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to everyone saying 'keep per Joe', I can't see what Joe's argument is. If it's 'other pages are just as bad', this is explicitly pointed out as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically under what about article x? and further expanded in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. This is not a clear argument to keep the page. The relevant criteria are found at the pages on notability and notability of web content. Specifically, articles must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial and independent published works, won a well-known independent award, or distributed by a medium independent of creators. WLU (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is his argument. Let me quote it from him: This is the problem with deletionists, you aim to get rid of all the good stuff when you should really be putting your efforts in developing articles to higher quality standards. But I may be speaking to those who don't care to listen on that issue, so I'll save my breath. He's calling us deletionists. My argument is below. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't know, it seems like it could be notable and worthy of keeping, but it's not really evident right now. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's worth noting that this article has been deleted twice before. Has anything changed since then? Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.