Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitistics

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 was delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitistics

nn website, fails WP:WEB, only two Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete wiki-cruft. 205.157.110.11 06:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP is not a web directory. Tychocat 09:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paddles TC 16:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Gray Porpoise 19:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep fills gap in Reference wikis List_of_wikis. While WP is not a directory, it does maintain helpful lists of similar sites. Joe 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's new, not unimportant.71.136.88.251 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.Eric 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Zoe. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Intellectualprop2002 00:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -great idea Cochese8 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think this user may be a sockpuppet of User:Jsmorse47 above, per here, but I don't have proof. Wmahan. 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What proof does Mr. Mahan need when he's got the power of accusation? Joe 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - obvious nn site ("beta", <50 articles), fails WP:WEB, etc. Note to closing admin - ermorse ("Eric"), Cochese8 and Jsmorse47 ("Joe") above are among the few contributors to the site, which brings up WP:VANITY concerns. The IP contribution above is also San Diego based, as is likely with the other keep vote. - David Oberst 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
ObertsOberst's argument fails: Google Talk is Beta and has an extensive article; also if Wikitistics had 51 articles would that make it relavent enough? Yes, I have friends/relatives in San Diego just like ObertsOberst has friends in Yellowknife, or maybe not. Joe 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Darn it, I wish people attacking me by name would at least spell it correctly. That aside, being a non-notable website failing WP:WEB is no sin, but it certainly leads to an article's removal until the situation should change. And again, there is nothing wrong with having friends and family (although apparently I wouldn't know), but if people are commenting on their own website and , um, accidentally forget to mention this, they shouldn't be offended if this omission is pointed out for the benefit of the closing admin - WP:VANITY exists for a reason. Finally, I'll assume pride of ownership can cloud one's analytical skills dramatically enough to see Google Talk as a suitable notability comparison for Wikitistics. - David Oberst 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was that you used the Beta status to discredit the website, which isn't reason enough because of the Google Talk reference. Can you describe exactly how it fails WP:WEB?
"beta" was merely an additional observation confirming the impression that the site was small, new, and had no evidence of notability, not an effort to "discredit" it. As for WP:WEB, this seems a little backwards - are there criteria you feel it meets? I've got nothing against small websites in their millions, but i don't think I'm wrong in saying that Wikitistics comes nowhere near Wikipedia inclusion threshold, as the results here show. I'd suggest you wait until the likely Deletion closure on this, and politely ask the closing admin to explain their reasoning, and confirm with a couple of other admins that they would have handled it in the same way. - David Oberst 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Copy that on the closing admin. About the your reasoning, perhaps it is backwards, but I've already explained its worth as a WP article and showed how other similar articles exist (above). In addition, it's unique as far as I know. I maintain that the burden of proof falls on the people that want to remove potentially viable information. I'm sure the Wikitistics inclusion threshold is as high as any other website despite its current user status. You mention that it's small (though you have "nothing against" that) and new (which doesn't seem to carry much weight), but besides that, is there anything that you find non-notable about the site so that it must be removed to save the 8k of storage space? Joe 01:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, non-notable, etc. Wmahan. 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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.