Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LifeWiki

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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion, and no consensus on whether keeping or merging is preferable. Any user is free to start a merge discussion outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LifeWiki[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable website. The most independent coverage I can find is a passing mention in NYT article. I don't think it's worthy of a mention on Conway's Game of Life, but if so it could be a redirect there. (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article is under construction, and LifeWiki can become notable. Nononsense101 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's not even a stub, the whole article just says that this site exists. Also seems to be not notable, if it become notable later is unknown and shouldn't be counted now. Artem.G (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The stubby and undersourced state of the article as found by Artem was because Buidhe nominated this for their deletion, as their first action concerning this article, approximately one hour after its initial creation, at a time when it was tagged by an "in progress" banner. This WP:BITEy behavior seems likely to have discouraged the contributor who was creating the article from further contributions. At best, this should have been draftified, but even then only after waiting an adequate time to ensure that it was not still actively under construction. In any case, I have added seven sources to the article, none of which are LifeWiki itself, and in the process expanded it from a one-line sub-stub to a proper stub. Five of the seven are of unimpeachable reliability (the NYT, three published books, and one published journal article); the other two are web sources which I think don't contribute to notability but are adequate for the content they source. The only reason my keep is weak is that none of the coverage is particularly in-depth, but I think that collectively it adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A passing mention does not count for notability. I checked all the sources cited; some are paywalled but this self-published website is the only one that goes beyond a passing mention. IMO it is better to delete than draftify an article when the fundamental problem is lack of notability, that can't be fixed by editing. Doing it sooner rather than later avoids wasting the creator's time. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or (possibly preferable) merge to Conway's Game of Life. The sources are enough to show that it's a significant part of the community of Game-of-Life enthusiasts. Shuffling the content over into the GoL article itself wouldn't overburden it, since we're talking about two short paragraphs. Now that decent sources have been found and the text has been written, there's no reason to get rid of them; the question is where to put them. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the article, I want to point out that deleting it soon can discourage me. And, as David Eppstein said, such behavior is BITEy.Nononsense101 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you know enough about Wikipedia to tell someone not to bite you, you aren't a newcomer. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conway's Game of Life. XOR'easter puts it perfectly; it seems fairly significant but not necessarily notable enough for its own article, so tucking it into its parent article makes sense. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Conway's Game of Life Not notable means it doesn't deserve its own article. It can be merged into Conway's Game of Life, and that's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Passes GNG and WP:WEBCRIT per sources added by David Eppstein. A merge outcome isn't necessary per notability policy, and I therefore oppose merge on the principal that merge proposals deserve their own space outside of AFD. A merge discussion could always be raised after this AFD closes without the threat of deletion influencing its outcome.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2021 (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.