Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userbox

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 January 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Despite recently being restored per a Deletion Review, the consensus here is clear, and the article has been deleted. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

This is an article on an internal subject of Wikipedia (Isn't there a policy against that? Maybe not.). I don't find it to be notable enough outside of Wiki-projects for its own article. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes, that article is completely redundant Habanero-tan (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable subject on its own. The current page as it stand is thinly disguised to talk about userbox as used within Wikipedia, which is a self-reference to be avoided. Do not turn into a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. KTC (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough, and completely redundant as we already have an article on this. Dwilso 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-referential, wrong namespace. WillOakland (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the userbox concept reaches mainstream culture and is written about in reliable and independent sources to the point where a user (non-wikipedian) would actually look up this article it fails notability criteria (Wikipedia articles cannot cite Wikipedia! (I think)) due to lack of sources. Atyndall93 | talk 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N outside the Wikipedia namespace. PeterSymonds | talk 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Badge. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you propose we merge it into Badge while not failing WP:UNDUE? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By condensing the content to an appropriate degree. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources assert that userbox is a type of badge, and if coverage of badges mentions userboxes, then it could be mentioned in the badge article and redirected to it, but currently is not a notable aspect of badges (or of Wikipedia), so there I cannot find an appropriate article for userbox to be redirected to. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A userbox is obviously a type of badge - that is a simple matter of language. It is a neologism though and so we should just redirect to a more normal word or phrase. Personal device might be better than badge. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Wakandas black panther mentioned, WP:UNDUE applies if mentioning it in the article. A redirect would be confusing as a search for "userbox" would redirect to an article that does not explain it. Also it is something specific to Wikipedia (and probably other wikis) and not a particularly notable aspect of them, and is rarely mentioned in coverage of badges, personal devices or wikis. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have the selfref template for such cases. See Self-reference. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While it certainly is notable outside of the WP userspace, it isn't notable outside of MediaWiki usage. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't ready for this level of covering everything under the sun yet, so for the time being, it should be removed until either the time comes when we've matured enough that we don't need to worry about notability any longer or independent reliable sources show up mentioning the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about EVERYTHING, which is next to impossible. We will have to have a notability guideline of some kind, else we'll have an article on everyone on the planet, dead or alive. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An encyclopedia of everything is exactly what I have in mind. Of course, we're not ready for that yet, so, for the time being, notability guidelines are something we have to live with. But that's a separate issue. Under our current policies and guidelines, this particular subject doesn't warrant inclusion in the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of WikiMedia websites. Don't redirect as it's incorrect to redirect from Article => Project space. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; lack of independent reliable sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially a trivial sub-topic of Wikipedia (which is notable), but is not notable in its own right. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside of Wikipedia and related websites. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable independent of Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, especially outside Wikipedia Gary King (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep: Userbox is not "an internal subject of Wikipedia", userbox is an internal subject of any wiki. It is relevant for Uncyclopedia, Conservapedia, Liberapedia almost all wikis. It is an important wiki term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources to indicate real-world notability? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton Page 56 and 171. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal notability guideline ask for multiple independent reliable sources. Also, how is one arguing that the source is showing that the topic isn't an "internal subject of Wikipedia" when the source being provided is entitled "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual"? KTC (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"An important wiki term." - As in, a term only notable to A Wiki-editor (which there are few less of than wiki-readers who do not edit). And (in a strictly opinionated, non-proven matter I say this) it's not really that important on the Wikis. <humor>After all, how often do you hear "My good man, I just added the most magnanimous userbox to my userspace!"?</humor> I just don't know as userboxes are notable enough, is all. By the way, do you know anyplace online where I can read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per source provided by above. A viable stub article using a single source. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Habanero-tan. Joelster (talk) 04:50, 6 May 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.