Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XvsXP
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 of the debate was no consensus. Thryduulf 15:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XvsXP[edit]
Non notable website fails WP:WEB Bige1977 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it doesn't meet WP:WEB as it meets the requirement "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as it has been sourced by Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/applescript/news/ and http://www.apple.com/applescript/resources/ Paul Cyr 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alexa of 188,519; forum has 888 registered members. Does not seem notable in that whole debate. --Kinu t/c 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Vote changed in light of the references and discussion cited below. I still don't think it's notable enough for an article - most of the references cited are very short one-off mentions of the site, rather than a proper review/commentary on it. If it's increasing in use as rapidly as suggested, it may well be worthy of an article soon, but not yet. Kcordina Talk 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The website meets WP:WEB as it meets the requirement "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as it has been sourced by Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/applescript/news/ and http://www.apple.com/applescript/resources/
- According to WP:GT nearly 16,000 websites contain the term "xvsxp.com".
- According to WP:GT Alexa ranks XvsXP.com at 188,519, having gone up 100,642 places in the past 3 months. A very strong change.
- As well, although not exactly the best support, I have had Apple representatives at my work mentioning XvsXP.com. Obviously this shows the site is well known.
- The following Wikipedia articles reference XvsXP: Operating system advocacy, Apple typography.
- EDIT: How's this for notability?
- http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3495/Chewbacca_Speaks_the_EFF_Google_Darktips.html
- http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1582/
- http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/10/166248
- http://www.digital-web.com/news/2003/05/27_06_48/
- http://www.macintouch.com/winmac.html#nov06
- So not only have Apple.com and numerous websites had mentionings of XvsXP, but the TechTV television show The Screen Savers even had an airing on XvsXP.
- Delete. Not notable, original research; it seems to me it fails WP:WEB (despite article author's assertions to the contrary): Apple is not an online newspaper, magazine, publisher or broadcaster. Bucketsofg 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that is what the sentance means. The footnote says "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion." I beleive that it is saying that online media is inclusive to the criteria, not a condition. Otherwise, how is a site such as Neowin permitted? It doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB yet it is permitted. As well, how is it original research? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, but it does have articles on sites that conduct original research. Take Gartner for example. Paul Cyr 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, a link from Apple's cite, or any web magazine, etc., would not meet this criteria. I take this guideline to imply that any significant article in a significant venue about a web-site is evidence of its notability. The fact that Apple provides a simple link to the site's comparison of Apple scripting to XP scripting does not establish notability. Secondly, the question of original research pertains to your article. How do you know any of the stuff that you write in the article? Cite your sources. There are none? Why, because it is stuff you know from your involvement with the site: that's original research. I want to emphasize that none of this is a criticism of the site, which may be very good, or of your article. It's just in my opinion this is not what wikipedia is about. Bucketsofg 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your points, which is why I did not vote a strong keep, and I realise the article is borderline non-notable, however, I do feel that it is in the end a notable website. Of course, this is why we are voting, as my opinion may not be the consensus of the community. However, I still do not see any original research from what I've added (there have been multiple contributors to the article, FYI). The overview is pretty much right from the website introduction. A web archive lookup will show the original page by the founder stating the original criteria of the site. The critisism is the only part that may be known from those involved with the site, but I refer to Slashdot trolling phenomena as an example of first-hand knowledge that is almost entirely unsourced. Unless someone were to make a list of external links showing a trend of trolling on Slashdot, are you claiming that it should not be mentioned in the article? And believe me, after being on a site such as XvsXP for as long as I have, I completely understand that although you disagree with my opinions, it is not an issue with myself or the site. :) Paul Cyr 19:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that you have spent a great amount of time on that site and are passionate about promoting it, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Please see WP:WEB note 4. Bige1977 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies on what is eligable to have an article. If I didn't honestly feel that the site met WP:WEB, I wouldn't have created the article. Please don't confuse a good-faith attempt to create an article with petty self-promotion (self in this case being the website I am a member of). Also, I would appriciate if you would respond to the points I raised on your vote before commenting in discussions about other votes. Paul Cyr 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that you have spent a great amount of time on that site and are passionate about promoting it, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Please see WP:WEB note 4. Bige1977 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: In light of more evidence, I have changed my vote to strong keep for the reasons mentioned in my original vote. Paul Cyr 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your points, which is why I did not vote a strong keep, and I realise the article is borderline non-notable, however, I do feel that it is in the end a notable website. Of course, this is why we are voting, as my opinion may not be the consensus of the community. However, I still do not see any original research from what I've added (there have been multiple contributors to the article, FYI). The overview is pretty much right from the website introduction. A web archive lookup will show the original page by the founder stating the original criteria of the site. The critisism is the only part that may be known from those involved with the site, but I refer to Slashdot trolling phenomena as an example of first-hand knowledge that is almost entirely unsourced. Unless someone were to make a list of external links showing a trend of trolling on Slashdot, are you claiming that it should not be mentioned in the article? And believe me, after being on a site such as XvsXP for as long as I have, I completely understand that although you disagree with my opinions, it is not an issue with myself or the site. :) Paul Cyr 19:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, a link from Apple's cite, or any web magazine, etc., would not meet this criteria. I take this guideline to imply that any significant article in a significant venue about a web-site is evidence of its notability. The fact that Apple provides a simple link to the site's comparison of Apple scripting to XP scripting does not establish notability. Secondly, the question of original research pertains to your article. How do you know any of the stuff that you write in the article? Cite your sources. There are none? Why, because it is stuff you know from your involvement with the site: that's original research. I want to emphasize that none of this is a criticism of the site, which may be very good, or of your article. It's just in my opinion this is not what wikipedia is about. Bucketsofg 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that is what the sentance means. The footnote says "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion." I beleive that it is saying that online media is inclusive to the criteria, not a condition. Otherwise, how is a site such as Neowin permitted? It doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB yet it is permitted. As well, how is it original research? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, but it does have articles on sites that conduct original research. Take Gartner for example. Paul Cyr 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Sorry, Paul, but I still don't think this is sufficient. If every website that gets a two-line write up and/or link gets an entry at wikipedia, it would soon become a web directory. Or, let's put it another way. Here is a full-blown news story about my blog, which is in my opinion not wiki-worthy. To get my vote, you need several stories like that, in similar venues (CTV is the second largest Canadian TV network), preferably over a period of time. Bucketsofg 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Moe ε 02:14, 1 April 2006 (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.