Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet (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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Planet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage in the media of WrongPlanet is generally repetitive and trivial. It would be better to merge the information into the Alex Plank article, since most of the articles are about Plank. Ylevental (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This edit is rather, um, questionable and should probably be explained, Ylevental. I'm also wondering if you have a conflict of interest here. Care to comment? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I was just referring to the two murders connected with the site at the bottom, though I don't know if it makes sense to put it at the top. I have no conflict of interest, as I am not an admin nor a moderator. Ylevental (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination based in personal opinion derived from a blog run by a person with whom this user does have an admitted COI connection. See here for one example. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what the nominator's connection is, but the non-response response, the heavy-handed edits[1][2] and another eventual acknowledgment of a COI (here) lead to the my question. That said, I'm trying to see if there is a reason to delete here. The nominator concluded the site "has been noted"[3], but feels the coverage in media has been "generally repetitive and trivial". "Repetitive"? I don't care. "Trivial"? I disagree, as did both of the prior AfD discussions. The site is clearly notable. IMO, that notability is clearly independent of its creator and a merge would result in an article that either loses substantial portions of the material here or meanders between topics. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further review shows I was not careful enough Ylevental (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To hide your bias? Yeah you're right. 1.136.97.105 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to add what hasn't already been said about this article's notability. 1.136.97.105 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This nomination doesn't have a leg to stand on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2016 (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.