Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freopedia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freopedia[edit]

Freopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has numerous issues. Firstly there are the conflicts of interest issues, in that many of the contributors to the article are organisers of this programme. Secondly, and most importantly, the sourcing does not show any degree of notability. The sources which mention Monmouthpedia do not mention Freopedia in any detail past a passing mention. The City of Fremantle is involved in this project, so information sourced to them can not be used to establish notability. This includes sources http://www.fremantlestory.com.au/ and http://www.visitfremantle.com.au/ which are operated by the City of Fremantle. The Fremantle Port Authority is also involved in this project, so the source to them can't be used to established notability. The source of Craig Franklin giving a 5 minute interview to 6PR also can not be used to establish notability, given his involvement with Wikimedia Australia and this being an WMAU pet project. That leaves us with 2 sources. http://96fm.com.au/index.php/events/showEvent/312 appears to be more of a directory listing of events on in Perth so anyone with a press release could get it listed. That leaaves us with the Cockburn Gazette, a community newspaper which services only a few suburbs. There is zero notability for this project. My apologies if this is done wrong, I had to register an account to bring this up for deletion discussion. CanterburyKiwi (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it was Australia's first wikitown project. There will be more sources. (But I guess as I'm involved with it, I've a conflict of interest and shouldn't get involved here?) Sam Wilson 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep*, here are some more sources: LG Focus, The West Australian, Toodyay Herald (p. 9) (inspiration for Toodyaypedia), Toodyay Economic Development Plan (p. 42): ("Investigate the development of a Freopedia style Wiki Town project for Toodyay"), finalist for state heritage award: State Government media statement & Heritage Council's website - 2014 finalists. (* With regards to COI, I have participated in editing Freopedia-related articles, templates, and categories) - Evad37 [talk] 03:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC). (Also noting that I created this article, replacing a cross-namespace redirect, in case anyone thinks that's relevant - Evad37 [talk] 03:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Well, let's see. The West Australian is one sentence. The Toodyay is a monthly. The rest are all local government organs, same as the original contested ones. Whenever I am faced with such a fork in the road, I ask myself, "What would Cirt do?" Life is funny, sometimes, isn't it? Anarchangel (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchangel: The rest are all local government organs, same as the original contested ones – No, they're not the same. The sources from the City of Fremantle can't be used for the purposes of notability because they are not independent from the subject. But that is not the case with Local Government Focus, the State Government, the Heritage Council, or Shire of Toodyay - none of them are affiliated with Freopedia. - Evad37 [talk] 05:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be very clear, I am the Craig Franklin referred to in the article, and I did do an interview (a long one too, not a 20 second spot) with Steve Gordon on 6PR about this. They approached us about it, and saying that it can't be considered independent because I was being interviewed is like saying that a newspaper report where Barack Obama is quoted is not independent of the US government. I'll grant that the City of Fremantle article is not independent enough for notability, but the other sources presented by User:Evad37 certainly are. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - eeing at least 2 sysops are responding here - since when does such a proposal lie as is - a proposal from a 2 edit user? Whose kidding who? Since when does a 2 edit user have such a weird proposal accepted at face value.? satusuro 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered that too, but then I thought that maybe this user generally edits anonymously. Don't know if that's the case, of course, but I guess it's one reason not to dismiss this. Dunno. Sam Wilson 10:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - the high probability of a WP:SOCK or someone wishing to perform a WP:PA on somebody involved with Freopedia is strong enough indicated in the nomination to ask for a checkuser of the 2 edit editor. satusuro 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it doesn't matter until someone else wants to come and agree with CanterburyKiwi about deleting Freopedia. It rather looks like everyone thinks it should stay put. :-) How long does this stay open till it's decided one way or t'other? Sam Wilson 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of AGF is (as its name suggests) the assumption of good faith when there is no evidence to suggest bad faith. In the case of CanterburyKiwi and this AfD proposal I see absolutely no evidence of bad faith or bias. (That we disagree with the proposal is irrelevant.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt call it "no evidence" the account was created two minutes before this nomination which was its first edit. We should assume good faith in that action as its potentially a person who may be known personally to many of the Freopedia participants, WMAU members and Australian editors in general and wishes to be anonymous. I can understand SatuSuro concerns because there have been other events to cause raised eyebrows about this. Gnangarra 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adding Evad37's extra sources. Disclosure: I'm also a Perth, Western Australian editor who's done some work on the Freopedia articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. By our own admission many of us (myself included) could be seen to have a biased view on this AfD. I'd like to see some input from non-involved editors. WP:CLOSEAFD already requires an uninvolved (in the discussion) admin to close the AfD either way - presumably "uninvolved" in this case would include "uninvolved in the Freopedia project". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite correct, there's no reason that someone involved with the project shouldn't comment here, but the close should be done by a neutral party with no prior involvement with Freopedia or WMAU. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment if editors work on articles is considered a COI then we have a problem thats is greater than this one article being discussed at AfD. A reasonable person could say that had I specified an expressed opinion it could be COI. The reasons being I started Freopedia, I'm VP of WMAU and I was finalist in the State Heritage awards because of my work on Freopedia and other projects that continue to have a positive impact on Wikipedia content. Editting articles about a broad topic/subject area isnt COI, reality is COI is about deriving some benefit that could potentially influence the content created and the way its presented even I dont stand to benefit or lose what ever the content. The articles existence has no bearing on the project its future nor its success, it was originally a redirect to the project page but that other discussion decided that an article was preferred option. The nominator is correct in saying the Cockburn Gazette covers small area part of the Perth Metro area they say on their FB page that the circulation is around 36,000 but importantly its circulation areas doesnt include Fremantle. Other references show that it has reach is outside of Australia adding to notability, whether a publication is monthly, weekly, daily or just a once off is irrelevant the measure is is it a WP:RS and WP:V. Gnangarra 16:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any conflict of interest, but there could certainly be bias, or the perception thereof. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to quote the nomination rationale The article has numerous issues. Firstly there are the conflicts of interest issues, .....(my emphasis) thats is what I'm addressing there. The second point the contributors to the article are organisers of this programme.... I am the organisor I havent contributed to the article my only edit was when it was a redirect none of the article editors have a direct role in organising this though Sam is/was highly involved in most offline activities and in content creation. The rest is about notability which others have addressed. Gnangarra 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still fail to see any reason for WP:AGF - too many afds like this from ,low edit possibly WP:SPA are given credit by well meaning misinterpreters of the AGF principle. I say even just one clue to the nominators nomination text of the slightest negative bias should see the nomination thrown out, regardless of the veracity of the actual intent of the nomination. I still stand by the checkuser suggestion, and a closer watch on eds who think 2 edits with knowledge of the issues as shown in the nomination be not assumed good faith. Where has the knowledge about notability come from? The responses above are basically feeding a Troll - and I thought in the old days we didnt do that. satusuro 01:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the assumption of good faith is that you don't need a reason - it's the default state. You need a reason not to assume good faith. Perhaps there are specific reasons - they have been alluded to above - as to why this particular case is suspicious (and I'm curious as to what they are, specifically), but one ought not tar all IPs or new editors with the same brush. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - regardless whether 'new' or not (how could the editor be 'new' if the nomination with its knowledge of notability, and the details about the project and the publications be possibly new?) - at AFD's specially (and RFA's) 2 edit users should be either (a) open and honest about how they know about wp policies to be able to even present such a nomination (which is why I suggest a checkuser request should be put in) (b) ignored and have the AFD closed on the basis that editors who have no indication of any experience on wikipedia or are not prepared to show their other account experience - otherwise they wouldnt even know anything about notability. satusuro 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just discuss the proposal and the article, on their merits, rather than debating the faith of the proposer ... Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the language, style and expressions of the nomination - that is not a neutral nomination. I am of the firm opinion that such nominations (2 edits and obvious experience and understanding notability and inherent assumptions about participants and the project) should never be allowed further than the nomination. satusuro 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When an editor knows enough about the system to propose a deletion and then immediately inform the person who started the article, it is quite clear that they have edited wikipedia before. I think we are entitled to know under what username or IP address he/she has done so. Since we do not know (or at least, I do not know), I am suspicious. I think SatuSuro is also entitled to be suspicious. Would the nominator please come forward and introduce himself/herself to us as a wikipedian? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Hello, I am "CanterburyKiwi" and am currently travelling for work, so my apologies for not responding sooner. I will log-back in when I have access to my device with LastPass on it. I just want to clear one thing up. I am not a new editor, but have been editing on Canterbury region articles over the last twelve months as an IP, and I stated I created an account because I couldn't nominate this for deletion otherwise. I came across the Freopedia article after doing research on such projects with the view at looking at something similar for Canterbury. With that said, whilst Freopedia is a great project, but is it a notable project which has multiple, independent sources which discuss the subject in great detail? Even with the additional sources, which are press-releasy in nature, or which are mentioned only in passing, it is still my firm belief that Freopedia is not notable. It is also my understanding that the Heritage awards in Western Australia were open to anyone who wished to nominate projects and people for them. If Freopedia actually won the award, then I would not have nominated it, because that would confer some notability for it. But it didn't win, so I'm not sure how the nomination would confer notability on the project. What is needed is a wider range of views from editors who aren't involved in this project. 103.5.74.42 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freopedia was actualy chosen as a finalist, not just nominated, in the 2014 heritage awards, per [1] - Evad37 [talk] 01:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the old days, someone would have blocked you for nuisance editing, but thats another issue. (1) Use your new user name consistently and stop editing from the IP - (2) There are independent reliable sources available (3) to nominate something like this for deletion if in fact you are hoping to do something with Canterbury your first stop is to go to the NZ project and other parts of wikipedia and get help, it is not something you do alone (4) taking another projects article to AFD hardly shows any good will regardless of your personal intepretation of COI, notability etc (5) try from a positive building attitude - rther than to put down another part of the wikipedia project (6) I still find it hard to believe your personal explanation - but your care in pulling the article apart falls down on the Heritage award. (And you wouldnt have nominated it if it had won? shame on you - to get on the short list is sufficient validity in the processes to have been checked out very carefully) To even get considered as a short listed finalist for the project means that people totally unconnected to the project examine it quite carefully, - the award process does not allow itself to be found short of close examination by independent examination of nominations. (7) please edit a lot more before even trying this sort of process again - for your own good, and also other members of wikipedia - 2 edit accounts have zilch credibility specially at RFA and AFD - show yourself in your editing consistently, then your credibility puts you in better stead satusuro 01:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the nominators message from an IP number is to be believed, the nominators interpretation on the processes of why and how a nomination is accepted by the Heritage Council of Western Australia was the difference between nominating this article for deletion and not, as there is little or no understanding of the process, I believe that despite interpretations of notability, COI and other issues, that the article is kept, and where relevant, improved refrencing and contextualisation of the isues in the article is done so that this AFD can move on and the new zealander editor proceed to edit a lot more under one acount so as to verify good faith editing. satusuro 01:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator claims that contributors to the article are organisers of the project. That belies a serious misunderstanding of the project - there are contributors to the project, one person who claims regularly in public venues to have started the project, and another who actually started it and who organises the project - all the rest are participants, there is one organiser - as a collaborative project such as this there is no such thing as a collective of organisers, it is a collective venture with collaborating editors. Fundamental understanding of wikipedian editing is it is a collaboration between people editing. satusuro 01:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on process This is an AfD for the article, not a venue for you to speculate about the identity, motivations, other accounts, or anything else about the nominator. Why the OP nominated the topic is completely irrelevant, other than in terms of the actual rationale proposed for deletion. Calling another editor a troll, or a sock, or saying they should be checkusered, or nitpicking their understanding of 'organizers' vs. 'contributors'.... this is all way off topic here, and, honestly, reads like an attempt to derail this through denigrating the nominator rather than actually debating the article at hand. That being said, I personally find attempts to 'judge' the contributions of editors, even if that contribution is to nominate an article for AfD, based on their number of edits, or how much 'social capital' they have built up among this or that group of editors to be completely contrary to the principles what we are supposed to all be following. @SatuSuro:, you seem to have gone far past 'not assuming good faith' to 'actively assuming bad faith'. Being 'neutral' is supposed to apply to editors as well...don't judge arguments based on 'who' made them, judge them based on if they are valid. Quit going on about the 'good old days', as if to emphasize your 'seniority'. Nobody assessing the issue at hand should give a damn. Reventtalk 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - ok so you have a point you wish to make, that doesnt disguise the fact that 2 edit contributors are always suspect at AFD and other Xfd parts of wikipedia - prove to me it isnt an issue - show me an afd or RFA where 2 edit contribs are taken seriously. satusuro 06:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a substantial and notable subject, with numerous independent verifiable references, and by the way the Cockburn Gazette services a population of about 100,000..Dan arndt (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established, article verified by independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic appears to pass notability, and article seems likely to continue to improve anyway. Please would editors with process issues keep them on the appropriate pages, and out of AfD discussions. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freopedia&oldid=1142197818"