Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (4th 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. NW (Talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia[edit]

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

Received only a brief flurry of coverage in September 2008. There is literally no coverage after that point, indicating that the site did not establish any long-term notability at all. There was a chunk of sources dug up in the 2nd AFD, but most of them were deemed either dubious, dated from September 2008 or both. Yes, I know this is the 3rd nomination (the "second" one was due to a twinkle glitch and doesn't count), but my points still stand. The site has utterly failed to establish long term notability, as literally no one paid any form of media attention to it after a brief coverage. Notability is not temporary, but if literally every source is from the same super-narrow swath, then it's hard to argue that it was really notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have enough sources, even if several are duplicates. I don't think that lack of being current covered is the same as lack of notability. PaleAqua (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make this a case of WP:OSE, but what makes this different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RinkWorks? Exact same situation. All coverage was a small handful of articles from the site's 1998 launch, with bupkis afterward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with the site in question but if it only had one source as was alluded to in the AfD then I could see why it was deleted. I don't think that just because a topic is no longer current means it's no longer notable. Also a little WP:OSE, but for example consider a company that has gone out of business such as Eastern Air Lines, does the fact that there is little to no current news on them. Also there are a few recent news articles on deletionpedia though they don't really say much new. See: http://www.revistasculturales.com/articulos/97/revista-de-occidente/1212/2/wikipedia-la-megaenciclopedia-de-la-web.html for example from 2009-12. PaleAqua (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I fail to see what new information has come about that would prove lack of notability from the last nomination 7 months ago. Perhaps if it receives no more coverage in several years that would be an argument to bring up the new deletion, but 7 months seems kind of small to me. If an athlete is world champion and then receives no coverage afterwards does that mean he is no longer notable. Can you please refer me to the section of WP:Notable where continued coverage is required, maybe its something specific to websites that I missed. MATThematical (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see any reason why something, once notable, ceases to be so because it is no longer newsworthy. By that rule huge numbers of historical entries would be deleted. Added to which the act of deleting would make the subject notable again... Webmink (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the list of WP:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (3rd nomination)'s potential sources, I just found this 20.10.2009 article in PC-Welt (German PC World): [1] (translation). Looks like the subject passes WP:WEB after all. — Rankiri (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources in the last AFD show that it meets the WP:GNG, and there's no other policy based reason (copyvio, WP:BLP1E for deletion. Repeatedly putting the article up for AFD won't change that.Umbralcorax (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why does this keep on being proposed? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Deletionpedia. — neutral on remaining on Wikipedia. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the sources are substantial enough to show that this site was ever notable, then it stays here. once notable, always notable. the argument that its no longer notable, or didnt live up to its promise, is utterly without merit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per mercurywoodrose. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources. that the sources are a year or two old does not make for lack of notability. If consensus is changing it's towards a more definite keep of this, and other such articles. Let's stop trying to pretend that a connection with Wikipedia is enough to make something less notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. In any case, there's recent coverage in Google News such as this so the nomination is counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't buy this new rationale at all. There is no such thing as "long term notability"; it wouldn't matter if all the sources were published during the same second. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:Notability#is not temporary. –xeno^talk 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In any society with free speech, there is a dynamic between publishing with no censorship and publishing with censorship to protect people from libel, copyright violation, trade secret violation, being exposed to extreme forms of pornography and illegal acts, and other violations of their rights and the protection of minors. In other words, it is not always clear whether the right to free speech overrides other rights in specific cases. Since WP is an encyclopedia, used by anyone including children and people residing in countries opposing the idea of freedom of speech, I believe that WP should be self-censored with respect to protecting people's rights. However, I also believe that deleted articles and text deleted from articles should be accessible from a separate website (such as Deletionpedia) which proclaims itself as completely uncensored. This arrangement makes it possible for search engines and governments to block this separate site easily when desired, yet to provide a source for investigating rights violations and satisfying other valid inquiries. Clearly, a WP article about such a site is WP:NOTE and does not a priori compromise the self-censorship of WP. David Spector 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered as recently as 20 Oct 2009 [2] in de:PC-Welt. Exceeds WP:NOTNEWS in my view. Pcap ping 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and ironically I'm the one who nominated it for the first AfD. I'm not particularly a fan of the site, but I think it has received sufficient independent coverage to be considered notable still. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep.--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per mercurywoodrose -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (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.