859:, which will subsequently grow a third arm from the middle of its forehead as Wikipediocracy-related material migrates there. Ultimately sourcing for the latter would become sufficient to withstand any notability challenge, and the topic page would split off again. Probably the former is a more rational way to build an encyclopedia. I am, of course, an active poster on the Wikipediocracy message board and will leave this opinion in the form of a comment rather than a definitive bolded Keep, but I hope the closing administrator will understand my point.
920:. for two reasons. Firstly because it appears to meet notability guidelines (and erring on the side of assuming it does is probably better PR than assuming it doesn't), and secondly because it will annoy the hell out of the conspiracy-mongers amongst Wikipediocracy contributors who are so obsessed with their own perceived self-importance that they have to blame the fact that their endless whining usually goes unnoticed on 'censorship', rather than boredom.
447:- The Salon article is a major source. If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion. On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here. The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "
31:
937:. This shouldn't be a coatrack for the views of certain Wikipediocracy members, obviously, but Wikipediocracy's involvement in recent Knowledge controversies, and the consequent coverage in Salon, etc. make this website notable. The fact that some content in the present article violates policy is not a reason to delete, but a reason to edit the article.
1023:
I would say that it's just on the very edge of notability. Most of the sources slightly mention
Wikipediocracy, but don't go into any real depth, so we're left with dealing with snippets. However, the article could certainly use some work. Secondary sources need to be found for two of the sections or
602:
verdict. The Salon article is a disgracefully sloppy piece of journalism, attacking
Knowledge for the conduct of one editor, when the author should have known how resilient the encyclopedia is against such things. About the article, it's not great, needs work, but we're certainly going to get it, if
456:" That kind of coverage is not what we have here. The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summar," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable, and so, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets
364:
says that it will soon pass the notability criteria with flying colours as it continues to collaborate with journalists in the exposure of problems here. Of course, there I is a chance that
Wikipediocracy might end up as the subject of coverage in its own right as it continues to provide exposés on
1073:
There's been at least one Delete opinion, so a withdrawal of the nomination wouldn't of itself end things here. This is actually a borderline notability situation under GNG, but I think the big majority of opinions above reflect the sensible way forward, even if one wants to explain the decision
355:
shows enough to demonstrate that, pace Jimbo, Kevin Morris is a proper journalist who has trained other proper journalists and that therefore his work for the Daily Dot counts as journalistic writing that counts as a reliable source. The issue is that
Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the
617:
Please remove your "WIKIPEDIA FTW" shades. The article attacks
Knowledge because the system failed to kick in and eject an individual who was subverting the site to his own unethical ends until outside pressure was applied. The only 'disgracefully sloppy' thing here is your logic.
751:
They are. However, what do you expect anyone to think, when you see an IP that is clearly anti-Knowledge (note that anti-Knowledge and pro-Wikipediocracy are not the same thing) spews bile in their way? Also, if they're anti-Knowledge, they're not a
Wikipedian. But whatever.
453:
trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of
Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online
229:
418:. The daily dot has been profiled in high quality most reliable sources, and its repeated coverage of Wikipediocracy establishes notability. It has been mentioned in other high quality, most reliable sources.
502:
but delete the SPS claims made in the article. It barely hits notability guidelines, though. The claims about members etc. may certainly be seen as "unduly self-serving" per
Knowledge RS standards, and
1047:. Hope you will all forgive me from not withdrawing this nomination. It was always going happen and I thought it was best to come from someone like me. Was the nomination in bad faith? I don't think so. (
118:
778:
Out comes the strawman. It takes an extraordinary leap in reasoning to decide my comments are somehow 'anti-Knowledge'. 'Knowledge is far from perfect' is not the same as 'WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!11!!!" --
477:
now that it is being noticed by the mainstream, and is a significant player in "wiki-wars" that have escaped the cozy confines of
Knowledge itself and are being noticed in the outside world. If
733:
comment is rather impolite. I thought IPs were encouraged to edit? Anyway there is no need for me to vote, since it appears this item will be kept, but please be nice to other
Wikipedians.
855:- To my way of thinking, there are two logical plays here. Either a Keep-and-Expand — and we know with mathematical certainty that this will expand if kept — or a Redirect to
223:
897:
877:
182:
710:
You're welcome to believe it or not, but it's the truth. Your logic is flawed. Not everyone who defends Wikipediocracy must be a blocked user with a vendetta. --
451:" Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis. The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: "
290:
In my opinion, this AfD was inevitable, and probably best if an uncontroversial wikignome (and one who is happy to admit when they are wrong) kicks off.
796:"Please remove your "WIKIPEDIA FTW" shades". That's essentially a Knowledge sucks comment. This discussion is unproductive, so we should discontinue it.
114:
40:
539:
What needless mention? Wikipediocracy exposed that living person's abuse of Knowledge and attracted attention from the outside world as a result. It
482:
189:
313:. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet
823:
779:
711:
667:
619:
544:
938:
155:
150:
1128:
159:
325:. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines.
586:
449:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
142:
17:
465:
244:
211:
45:
revert NAC as inappropriate, leave AfD discussion closed, retain keep result (see talk page of article), and relist 2nd AfD
389:
564:. Notability in the outside world seems pretty much established now. The tone of the article may still need attention. --
102:
91:
582:
432:
1110:
461:
406:
73:
50:
205:
827:
783:
715:
671:
623:
548:
419:
385:
942:
608:
1091:
1064:
1035:
1013:
996:
974:
946:
929:
909:
889:
868:
831:
813:
787:
769:
742:
719:
701:
675:
657:
627:
612:
590:
573:
552:
534:
516:
494:
469:
439:
410:
393:
374:
342:
304:
201:
124:
1030:
1009:
925:
361:
384:. I think it is notable enough per several currently cited sources. These sources seem to qualify as RS.
1106:
808:
764:
696:
652:
425:
370:
337:
69:
481:
can have an article, certainly this site, which has taken over that site's role as the most prominent "
366:
251:
1052:
402:
797:
753:
730:
685:
641:
569:
326:
237:
146:
604:
460:. The question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.—
1087:
1060:
1025:
1005:
921:
905:
885:
864:
738:
530:
512:
490:
300:
281:
62:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1105:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
68:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
856:
478:
217:
109:
684:
And yet you appear with these sorts of edits. Excuse me whilst I don't believe your story.
992:
292:
269:
1048:
1044:
565:
277:
138:
130:
87:
353:
1122:
1079:
1075:
955:
504:
457:
322:
318:
314:
273:
265:
261:
1083:
1056:
901:
881:
860:
734:
526:
508:
486:
296:
121:
176:
959:
260:
OK, may as well get this started: it just hasn't got enough coverage yet. Fails
95:
1051:). Please do feel free to send me nastygrams and so on. I probably deserve it.
988:
525:
of a living person where the article is about WO and not about that person.
543:
be in the article, and your attempt to remove it is simply inexplicable. --
507:
must be strictly adhered to with regard to the Q essay/blogpost/article.
285:
822:
No, it's a "Knowledge is not perfect, stop pretending it is" comment. --
360:
one where it is identified as crucial in the exposure of Young. My
1099:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1043:... and the weather forecast for this AfD is six more days of
25:
521:
Note: The self-serving claims were re-added, as well as the
603:
not now then very soon, so we might as well get on with it.
295:
and stick to the relevant criteria for deletion, people.
172:
168:
164:
117:- should have been reopened but has been superseded by
236:
979:(I'm one of the founders and am a moderator there)
1024:they should be removed as not all that relevant.
76:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1113:). No further edits should be made to this page.
401:obviously notable now after the Salon expose.
898:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
878:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
250:
8:
896:Note: This debate has been included in the
876:Note: This debate has been included in the
1004:Obviously notable enough for inclusion. --
895:
875:
115:Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_24
420:The Salon article establishes notability
43:. The result of the deletion review was
640:And which blocked user are you, Mr IP?
49:For an explanation of the process, see
7:
987:- I found the article informative.
1049:Well I would say that, wouldn't I?
24:
284:source about itself. And so on.
29:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
41:deletion review on 2013 May 24
1:
1078:rather than the guideline of
666:I have never been blocked. --
268:. Yes, it was mentioned in
1145:
598:- there's no doubt of the
276:a reliable source? Hmm...
111:16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC),
51:Knowledge:Deletion review
1129:Pages at deletion review
1102:Please do not modify it.
1092:15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
1065:11:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
1036:10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
1014:03:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
997:21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
975:19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
947:18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
930:18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
910:18:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
890:18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
869:17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
832:14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
814:14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
788:14:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
770:19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
743:18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
720:17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
702:17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
676:17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
658:17:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
628:17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
613:16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
591:16:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
574:16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
553:17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
535:16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
517:15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
495:15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
470:14:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
440:14:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
411:13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
394:12:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
375:12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
356:articles except for the
343:11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
305:10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
125:14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
65:Please do not modify it.
1041:Comment from nominator
113:Inappropriate NAC per
583:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
264:, specific guideline
1074:under the policy of
810:(tell Luke off here)
766:(tell Luke off here)
698:(tell Luke off here)
654:(tell Luke off here)
581:. It meets the GNG.
462:alf laylah wa laylah
339:(tell Luke off here)
386:My very best wishes
272:, exactly once. Is
981:
912:
892:
485:", deserves one.
438:
270:a reliable source
92:non-admin closure
57:
56:
39:was subject to a
1136:
1104:
1033:
1028:
977:
972:
969:
967:
958:at this stage -
954:- clearly meets
857:Knowledge Review
806:
803:
800:
762:
759:
756:
694:
691:
688:
650:
647:
644:
523:needless mention
479:Knowledge Review
437:
435:
430:
423:
335:
332:
329:
255:
254:
240:
192:
180:
162:
106:
99:
67:
33:
32:
26:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1111:deletion review
1100:
1031:
1026:
965:
963:
960:
804:
801:
798:
760:
757:
754:
692:
689:
686:
648:
645:
642:
433:
426:
424:
403:Darkness Shines
362:WP:Crystal Ball
352:. I think that
333:
330:
327:
280:is of course a
197:
188:
153:
137:
134:
104:
97:
81:The result was
74:deletion review
63:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1142:
1140:
1132:
1131:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1068:
1067:
1038:
1017:
1016:
999:
982:
949:
932:
914:
913:
893:
872:
871:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
824:81.164.219.235
817:
816:
791:
790:
780:81.164.219.235
773:
772:
746:
745:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
712:81.164.219.235
705:
704:
679:
678:
668:81.164.219.235
661:
660:
633:
632:
631:
630:
620:81.164.219.235
593:
576:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
545:81.164.219.235
497:
472:
442:
413:
396:
378:
377:
346:
345:
291:
289:
278:Wikipediocracy
258:
257:
194:
139:Wikipediocracy
133:
131:Wikipediocracy
128:
79:
78:
58:
55:
54:
48:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1141:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1124:
1114:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1029:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
986:
983:
980:
976:
973:
971:
957:
953:
950:
948:
944:
940:
939:168.12.253.66
936:
933:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
894:
891:
887:
883:
879:
874:
873:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
851:
850:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
815:
812:
811:
807:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
768:
767:
763:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
728:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
700:
699:
695:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
656:
655:
651:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
605:Chiswick Chap
601:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
501:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
450:
446:
443:
441:
436:
431:
429:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
380:
379:
376:
372:
368:
363:
359:
354:
351:
348:
347:
344:
341:
340:
336:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
287:
283:
279:
275:
274:The Daily Dot
271:
267:
263:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
199:Find sources:
195:
191:
187:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
161:
157:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
135:
132:
129:
127:
126:
123:
120:
116:
112:
110:
108:
107:
101:
100:
93:
89:
85:
77:
75:
71:
66:
60:
59:
52:
46:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1101:
1098:
1053:I won't mind
1040:
1020:
1002:Strong keep.
1001:
984:
978:
961:
951:
934:
922:AndyTheGrump
917:
852:
809:
765:
697:
653:
599:
595:
578:
561:
540:
522:
499:
474:
452:
448:
444:
427:
415:
398:
381:
357:
349:
338:
310:
293:Keep it nice
259:
247:
241:
233:
226:
220:
214:
208:
198:
185:
103:
96:
83:
82:
80:
64:
61:
44:
36:
416:Speedy keep
367:Peter cohen
224:free images
731:Lukeno94's
434:.Wolfowitz
282:WP:PRIMARY
1107:talk page
1006:Brangifer
902:• Gene93k
882:• Gene93k
566:Arxiloxos
288:it ain't.
70:talk page
1123:Category
1109:or in a
487:*Dan T.*
365:WP/WM.--
286:Slashdot
183:View log
72:or in a
1084:Carrite
1057:Shirt58
861:Carrite
853:Comment
735:Optimom
596:Comment
527:Collect
509:Collect
483:BADSITE
454:stores.
422:, also
350:Comment
297:Shirt58
230:WP refs
218:scholar
156:protect
151:history
122:Spartaz
88:WP:SNOW
1080:WP:GNG
1076:WP:IAR
1027:Silver
956:WP:GNG
541:should
505:WP:BLP
458:WP:WEB
428:Kiefer
323:WP:ORG
319:WP:WEB
315:WP:GNG
311:Delete
266:WP:WEB
262:WP:GNG
202:Google
160:delete
86:. Per
1032:seren
989:Wikfr
358:Salon
245:JSTOR
206:books
190:Stats
177:views
169:watch
165:links
16:<
1088:talk
1061:talk
1045:snow
1021:Keep
1010:talk
993:talk
985:Keep
952:Keep
943:talk
935:Keep
926:talk
918:Keep
906:talk
886:talk
865:talk
828:talk
799:Luke
784:talk
755:Luke
739:talk
716:talk
687:Luke
672:talk
643:Luke
624:talk
609:talk
600:Keep
587:talk
579:Keep
570:talk
562:Keep
549:talk
531:talk
513:talk
500:Keep
491:talk
475:Keep
466:talk
445:Keep
407:talk
399:Keep
390:talk
382:Keep
371:talk
328:Luke
301:talk
238:FENS
212:news
173:logs
147:talk
143:edit
119:AfD2
84:keep
1055:.--
321:or
252:TWL
181:– (
105:Jay
98:Jay
1125::
1090:)
1082:.
1063:)
1012:)
995:)
966:is
945:)
928:)
908:)
900:.
888:)
880:.
867:)
830:)
805:94
802:no
786:)
761:94
758:no
741:)
718:)
693:94
690:no
674:)
649:94
646:no
626:)
618:--
611:)
589:)
572:)
551:)
533:)
515:)
493:)
468:)
409:)
392:)
373:)
334:94
331:no
317:,
303:)
232:)
175:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
94:)
1086:(
1059:(
1008:(
991:(
970:n
968:o
964:l
962:A
941:(
924:(
904:(
884:(
863:(
826:(
782:(
737:(
714:(
670:(
622:(
607:(
585:(
568:(
547:(
529:(
511:(
489:(
464:(
405:(
388:(
369:(
299:(
256:)
248:·
242:·
234:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
209:·
204:(
196:(
193:)
186:·
179:)
141:(
90:(
53:.
47:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.