Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death by wikipedia

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 merge to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Merge new information and redirect (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death by wikipedia[edit]

non-notable neologism Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe this would fall under WP:DICTIONARY as it's a definition of a term. OlYeller^Talktome 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of people who vandals have declared dead? Keep this, and vandals will think that their contributions are actually useful. And we don't want that, do we? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep - the phrase itself may be a neologism, but the article itself documents a notable phenomenon. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Criticisms of Wikipedia. The sources cited in the article demonstrate that this has been notable enough to gain media attention, and to call criticism to Wikipedia (the quote from the Washington Post is worth repeating-- "Unlike, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia has no formal peer review for its articles. They may be written by experts or insane crazy people. Or worse, insane crazy people with an agenda." The fact that Jimbo Wales had to order changes after the death of Senator Byrd was reported ([1]) shows that this isn't just a dictionary term. I've considered the possibility that the existence of this article would inspire even more such abuses, and all I can say is that people are more likely to read about it in the news than to stumble across it on this site. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT, WP:NEO Sceptre ^(talk) 14:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticisms of Wikipedia and hope and pray FlaggedRevisions accomplishes what it's set out to do. MuZemike 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redir to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Yesterday I had speedied an earlier form of this article for a host of reasons, especially since there were no sources (and failed WP:N) and it was written very POV. However, now, in this remake, that the user has provided sources and made it less POV it may somehow be viable. However, I think this belongs as a subsection of Criticisms of Wikipedia because beyond examples I don't see how this can be a significantly in-depth article. Valley2city^‽ 15:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Should be covered there. Computerjoe 's talk 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe 's talk 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Criticisms of Wikipedia. It is a notable neologism and valid criticism with plenty of press coverage. There should be a section on the main article with that information. §FreeRangeFrog 19:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis and redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, after we Merge anything useful (i.e., sourced) into Criticism of Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is not about a word, but about an important issue and criticism of wikipedia; notable, significant press coverage of the recent case OdVardara (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I was unfamiliar with the criticisms article when I posted this AFD and info can be stripped and brought over, but I don't think the phrase itself has enough legs to stay on its own.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon is very notable. It has created high profile scandals in the media; most recently, the scandal in which Ted Kennedy has been proclaimed dead has been reported by BBC, New York times, Washington post etc.
The phenomenon repeats itself, so much so that wikipedia community considered radical shift in core policies, as reported by BBC.

It is one of the bad sides of wikipedia, but it should not be put under the carpet. The name of the article can be changed, but an article about phenomenon is clearly appropriate; however, the current name is one used in the media and seems appropriate.PrecioUS-USA (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that merging the content into Criticism of Wikipedia would be "sweeping it under the carpet". We're not talking about removing the content; we're talking about putting it where more people will see it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Although this phenomenon is somewhat notable, I don't think it is sufficiently notable to justify a separate WP article. AdjustShift (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above -- samj _in ^out 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Notability isn't established by sites using the term. Putting those separate instances together is original research. There needs to be discussion of this exact term and its usage in reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. Name to change using naming conventions if necessary. Irishflowers (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2009 (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.