|
Memory Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2 | AfD3 | AfD4 | AfD5)
No clear consensus to delete and, in fact, to me it looked like a clear no consensus as this former featured article had survived at least four AfDs prior. Not only does there seem to be an active number of editors working on the article but the main concern was sourcing which was directly addressed at the AfD as well. -- Banjeboi 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin comment Deletion debate was open the proper length of time and was closed under process. As I explained, my close was based off of the weight of the deletion arguments citing notability and sourcing concerns and the weakness of the keep arguments citing existence as a major website and as a wiki as reasons to retain. MBisanz talk 17:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus The keep arguments are mischaracterized in the close and above, as "citing existence as a major website and as a wiki" and "inherent notability". On the contrary, almost all the keeps had standard, "No, there are reliable sources here, here and here" arguments, which provided more than enough sources for a keep. The close was not consistent with the discussion and guidelines.John Z (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There is no procedural error here, the delete close was within the bounds of reasonable discretion. My reading of this is the balance of consensus was to delete. A different, less bold, closer could have called no consensus but it wasn't and I see nothing inherently wrong with the actual decision made. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus or keep -- if relisted, there will probably be a snow keep,as there just has been for two similar sites--Wookipedia and Lostpedia. Equally incorrect nomination, delete arguments, and close. IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based reason for delete, and neither is the present absence of sourcing if something is sourceable. DGG (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as nominator. What Tiptoety said. Most of the keeps were ILIKEIT or BIGNUMBER. I fail to see any substantial coverage in reliable sources, or anything else that would warrant a keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn as no consensus There was no consensus as to whether the sourcing given was good enough. Many sources were given especially late in the deletion discussion. And a major edit was done shortly before the close[1]. Furthermore the logical redirect would have been to The Lights of Zetar or something like that. Redirecting to Star Trek makes me wonder how much the closer actually read the discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That expansion you link to occurred 4 days before the close. I thought the existing listing at Star_Trek#External_links would be the good match for the redirect, although admittedly the Redirect target is a content decision that can better be arrived at on a talk page. MBisanz talk 13:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I still have yet to see non-trivial, reliable sources. DARTH PANDAduel 06:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. The closure was too soon because it didn't take into account recent edits and the sources provided (which were the main pinnacle in determining notability were not widely discussed enough to have an informed consensus.- Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, as there was indeed none. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. MBisanz wasn't doing anything wrong in weighing the arguments rather than going on vote count, but I think he missed the strength of the keep arguments. They were pointing to numerous sources that were mostly being dismissed with non-specific criticism from the delete side. One particularly bad argument for deletion was that the best coverage is in sources about Wikis that only briefly discuss MA... I think that illustrates that MA is notable more as a Wiki than for its importance to Star Trek fans. And it indicates that perhaps the article needs to be rewritten to stick to properly reliable information. But that doesn't mean not covering the topic is best. Mangojuicetalk 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as keep / no consensus. Redirecting may have been a viable solution, but there appears to have been no consensus for among the participants in the AfD. The arguments for keep appear to be based on the presence of reliable and verifiable sources and there appears to be no reason why the apparent consensus for retention should have been overridden. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - no procedural error on the part of the closer, no new facts brought here. Suggest an interested party request the text be userfied and write a sourced article based on it and the supposed sources, if they exist and are non-trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, close as no consensus per Mango and John Z; I don't see that any close as "delete" can be reasonably sustained. Joe 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Close was well-explained and procedurally valid. Not liking the outcome is not a great reason to undo it, and that seems to be the main issue here. The redirect does seem to be a valid resolution of the long-term issues with sourcing, notably the fact that just about every source tracks back to what the site and its members say about it. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per my comments in the AFD. But I thought the redirect was supposed to go to a specific episode, not the entire series? --Rividian (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can go to either the main article or an episode. I went with the first redirect option listed, but that is an editorial choice in the end. MBisanz talk 03:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn to No Consensus per Mango but no seafood to the face for the closer as the close was within the bounds of admin discretion. It was close but IMHO it fell on the "keep/no consensus" side of the fence. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse not keeping, "no nontrivial coverage" is a dealbreaker. The redirect could also go to Wikia or some list of SF fan wikis (there is enough coverage to support a list entry, but not for an article). Kusma (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no clear consensus. Closing this was unreasonable and there were other editors working on the article, and again, it seems after four AfD's some admins are after quotas, awards and nominations which is turning Wikipedia into a political bureaucracy more than a living encyclopedia.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think the closing admin valued each opinion with equal measure and admitted it was difficult. However, I believe he made the correct decision. Yanksox (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closing administrator comment that "this is a difficult close" highlights the lack of clear consensus. --Jmundo (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus. The closing admin may personally believe in good faith that the delete arguments were "stronger" than the the keep arguments, but this is not how "rough consensus" should be determined according to deletion policy and the deletion guide for administrators. This is simply case where differing interpretations of policy (essentially boiling down to how much coverage is "non-trivial") led to good-faith arguments on both sides, and the discussion clearly resulted in no consensus (i.e., no agreement) that the article was insufficiently notable and needed to be deleted or redirected. DHowell (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, many of the "Keep" arguments were rightly assigned diminished weight due to essentially being WP:ILIKEIT. Difficult discussion to close, but I think the correct call was made. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus. Valid arguments for deletion were made, but this article really does seem to hover on the edge of our notability standards. It appears to be a fairly subjective interpretation as to whether sufficient sources are available and whether it's had sufficient mention: but a definite majority of the participants seem to think it did. While certainly vote-counting is not the way to make an AfD closure, I did think it overly presumptuous of the closer to dismiss so many keep arguments. I'd in fact planned to revisit my vote there and further respond to TenPoundHammer's slightly supercilious response calling it an "I like it" argument. In the end I decided not to, as (I felt) a clear consensus to keep the article was developing and there was no need for me to extend the drama over one vote. Evidently I was incorrect; reasonable people clearly differ on the consensus (and 99% of the time I agree entirely with MBisanz's closes). But when many reasonable people differ on the notability of the subject, and then many reasonable people differ over the resulting consensus... I think there's no consensus. Thanks. ~ mazca t|c 12:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: With regards to the notability of Memory Alpha, is it not sufficient that the site has received acknowledgments as a reference source in nearly a dozen published novels...in addition to three external awards [or nods ], notably from Entertainment Weekly and Science Fiction Weekly, and even appeared (albeit somewhat obscure, yet identifiable) in the documentary on the History Channel: "Star Trek: Beyond the Final Frontier"? If indeed this is sufficient, then this should be overturned, if not, then there really isn't anything more concrete that can be provided to support its continued existance. --Gvsualan (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all trivial mentions if you ask me. None of those really goes into detail; just being cited as a source in a novel isn't enough by any means. I hope that the closing admin weighs the reasoning behind each !vote here, as some of these overturns are pretty weak ("an absurd close" doesn't cut it). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Equally one might want endorses eliminated on poor reasoning. Several state the keep votes were mostly ILIKEITS etc. My question is "which ones?". When someone (who later pointed to sourcing) at first made nonstandard arguments, he was chided by a respected and knowledgeable editor with "What matters is whether people have written about the subject, not whether they have read it. That is what everyone else here is, rightly, discussing." There was not a single keep !voter who did not either point to sources (all but one) or to policy (one). This is not the impression one would gain from the close. Should rough consensus be determined by whether the discussion overall thought the sources were trivial, or just what one side or the closer thinks?John Z (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it's stretching the definition of 'trivial' to use it to describe a 290 word article. Also, while the amount of information included is small, I'd say the Entertainment Weekly reference, by giving the site an explicit rank among other sites of its category (i.e., the 11th most important fan site on the web), also rises above trivial, at least as it is defined at WP:WEB. JulesH (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn No real consensus and, frankly, a whole lot of WP:CHERRY going on on the Delete side of the AfD. Also, a excessive amount of sniping from Ten Pound Hammer disrupting the discussion. Excise those, and the weight probably lands on Keep per the previous, what, five (really ?!) AfDs. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I was wondering how long it would take you to respond. A little over two hours. Even less than I would have imagined. If you'd please let others stand by theirs without challenging each-and-every one with the same restatement of your own, it would raise the tone of this considerably. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There were plenty of reasonable arguments for keeping based on their interpretation of policy and guidelines. The discussion mainly focused on notability and many contributors were bringing forward sources that they felt contributed to this - the closing admin should not decide whether they are correct or not unless it is blatantly wrong (not the case here). There were no grounds for the closing admin to ignore such opinions which were based on their interpretation of our notability guidelines. Without ignoring those opinions there was no consensus for deletion, the closing admin should not be deciding which opinions he believes is correct unless there is a clear policy which has not been addressed by one side of the discussion. Davewild (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. AfD was valid. Keep arguments were based on the idea that a number of trivial mentions somehow add up to significant coverage, which is supported neither by policy or common sense. Significant coverage is a much clearer and more straightforward standard than some here are suggesting. Chick Bowen 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these criterias of trivial/non-trivial coverage defined in WP:WEB are going sometime, er.. ridiculous (Or their use: I think the devil is between the lines). If a reference like this (classified as non-trivial coverage) is sufficient to establish notability for a site like ED, so why bothering deleting an article like MA's one with so much links and sources as well? MA's article will be reestablished one day for sure if it gets deleted now. My how Wikipedia has evolved (!) like Ten Pound Hammer said one day in one of the numerous AfDs. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 23:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Star Trek has a right to cite another article notability in the subject. From Other stuff exists: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts".--Jmundo (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's got every right to, that doesn't mean that there isn't a rational argument for the converse that involves noting that the deletion of ED (which was deleted for years before press coverage picked up) is not directly analogous to the deletion of MA. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn -- the sources cited in Memory_Alpha#Notes indicate sufficient coverage of this website in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus. Decision to delete seems very strange considering a large proportion of contributors to the deletion debate were of the opinion the article could be kept, and provided policy-justified reasons for keeping it (including non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, such as a featured article concerning the site on notable reliable source scifi.com). Deletion arguments consisted primarily of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The few arguments from policy seemed to be that the articles about the site were trivial, but this is not in agreement with the definition of trivial sources at WP:WEB. JulesH (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think this was a reasonable, in-process close, especially since many of the "sources" adduced in the debate proved to be so trivial. Eusebeus (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, since I cannot see a consensus for redirection or deletion. The closer's primary role is to evaluate whether there is a consensus, not to decide which arguments s/he agrees with most. Interpreting whether the article meets guidelines is primarily up to the people participating in the debate, not the closer. (Otherwise, the person closing the debate is given a disproportionate amount of power in determining the outcome.) Although a closer has some discretion in discounting ridiculous or misguided reasons, and can make some evaluations if when evaluating consensus is unclear, I cannot see the numerous arguments made for inclusion being silly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - The concerns over the reliable sourcing in the article are valid and an inability to address such concerns carries weight at an AfD5. However, the AfD5 protest over the failure of the article to be brought up to Wikipedia standards didn't seem as strong in view of the keep arguments as would demand that the article be deleted (technically redirected). The topic likely is notable (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and there are long term editors interested in the topic. Yet, the Wikipedia article sourcing uses too much information from the Memory Alpha wiki. The Wikipedia article intermixes actual Wikipedia reliable sources with personal opinions supported by external links to the Memory Alpha wiki. The Wikipedia article also carries a "Current issues" section that appears to be an article namespace blog. The Wikipedia footnotes even seems to contain some gossip a Memory Alpha wiki participant named Sussman. I think its fairly shocking that the concerns raised in the five requests to delete this article have not been adequately address, particularly since it seems that they could be and there are long term editors interested in the topic. And just because it likely will survive AfD5, does anyone not expect this article to be at AfD6? If you are interested in this topic, please step up and fix the issues of the article so that it doesn't see another AfD again. -- Suntag ☼ 15:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. The closer has the discretion to interpret consensus and give appropriate weight to policy-based argument, and I see little force in the 'keep' comments. It's clearly a popular site, but notability in Wikipedia terms - as established in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources - has not been proven. EyeSerenetalk 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If the reliable sources cited, which include one with 4 paragraphs of 285 words, along with my own search which has turned up another source with 3 paragraphs of 111 words, another with 2 paragraphs of 98 words, and many with at least some mention but perhaps less substantial coverage—and I haven't even looked at the sources cited in the article yet—if this is not enough, exactly how much coverage do those endorsing delete require in order to "prove" notability? This would be good to know in case I find something else with a thousand words or so of coverage in reliable sources, whether I should bother writing an article or not. DHowell (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The debate was over how the sources affect notability. Before I get to the AfD itself I'm going to point out that out of the 26 "notes" and 2 "references" only one (outside of the site itself) mentions the website in the title and that is a link to an Uncyclopedia page; "the content-free encyclopedia". That alone should tell you something regarding the notability. The in-article argument for notability that the wiki was cited by scholarly sources is invalid as even undergraduate students can get their names tacked on a scholarly article if they were a lab-assistant. Most all of the references are about wikis in general and not about this particular wiki, that's hardly the "in-depth" coverage the subject of an article needs to be notable. As for "multiple, reliable sources", if they exist, they aren't cited in the article. What is cited are only trivial mentions that either do not analyze the subject matter, or they do not take it seriously. The NYT is the biggest name on the list, but it only mentions the site as "one of many sites on the Web devoted to "Star Trek." -- definitely a trivial mention. The globe and mail's trivial mention is even more damning, saying that "You probably won't look at Memory Alpha". I don't see one source that adequately covers the site. For as popular the wiki is in-universe, apparantly nobody's heard of it in the real world. On to the AfD.... Most of the votes to delete were based upon the lack of evidence of reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources that I have just summarized. Uncle G stated that the only substantial source he could find as an italian news source but per my babelfish translation it seems also to be a trivial mention and the point of the article seems to announce that the Wiki had expanded into the Italian language. Raitchison's provided a few sources but yet again they don't appear to be substantial enough, they were mostly about wiki's in general, not this wiki in particular. Several keep votes followed from the addition of these sources. DGG provided no verification to his (POV?) statement that it's "a major website". Benjiboi's lists of sources appear to be either trivial mentions or from in-universe guides. During a close AfD it's up to the closing admin to make the call because (it took me this long but here it is) AfD isn't a vote. The admin weighs the arguments and per my above ramblings I feel the admin made the right call. What makes a notable wiki? Here's the google scholar results and google news results for a notable wiki. Compared to this in-depth coverage of the operation of the site, Memory Alpha is clearly a non-notable wiki. Themfromspace (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in our guidelines does it require "mentioning the website in the title" for a source to establish notability? The actual guideline says "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." And "as popular the wiki is in-universe" is a complete misunderstanding of "in-universe": no one has ever suggested that the site is popular among the inhabitants of the Star Trek universe itself (nor is there evidence that a wiki would even necessarily exist in that universe). And as an answer to my question immediately above, I see that 209 words in Italian, in addition to the sources I mentioned above, are still not enough to establish notability in the minds of some. We're up to at least 703 words in at least 4 independent, reliable sources, which apparently is still considered "trivial coverage" by some in this debate. Again I ask those endorsing deletion, how many words, or how much coverage by whatever objective measure, are required for enough "significant coverage" to establish notability? DHowell (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, if Wikipedia is the example you are giving for your standards for notability of a wiki, we may as well delete all articles on all other wikis, because I doubt that any other wiki in existence can establish that level of coverage. DHowell (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that there's enough evidence to prove the site is popular and significant, and its inclusion in a list of Wikis or mention in a parent article can be supported. The closure as I see was based on the argument that, as policy currently stands, the ideal Wikipedia article should be a well-written distillation of reliable secondary sources, and until Memory Alpha has been covered in depth by such sources there's not enough material out there to support a stand-alone article. EyeSerenetalk 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was assessing the articles that I couldn't read because they weren't linked to from the wikipedia article. And by looking at the titles it is indeed pretty easy to sum up what the articles are about and its easy to see that none of them are about the wiki at hand. But instead of assuming, I'll show as much as possible the invalidity of these sources.
- I'm about to do an exhaustive analysis of each source cited in the article. The first source is the NYT article I refuted above. The second is the Globe and Main source I refuted above. The third reference viewed here gets three quotes and two sentences mentioned about it. For the fourth reference, the note here identifies that the article is about wikis in general, and not that particular wiki. Again, the title predicted the contents. The fifth reference gives the wiki a one sentence (out of 38 pages) passing mention about its creative commons licence. I have no idea what the sixth reference is on, but it appears that the wiki is used only as a pool for sampling data, again no discussion about it. The seventh source appears to just be an inclusion of the sixth source within a large book. The eighth reference only contains citations to the website. Since wikis arent reliable sources per our guidelines then not only is this reference circular but the information in it isn't reliable. I can't find the ninth source, "Disturbing times : the state of the planet and its possible future" but its only used to back up the claim that the subject is notable because it was cited in scholarly sources. And i'm also willing to bet that the article doesn't provide in-depth analytical coverage of the wiki. The tenth source, the Definitive Star Trek Trivia Book only uses the wiki as an answer to a trivia question. Now to state the obvious, that is a trivial mention :) The eleventh source is a work of fiction, I'm not sure how the wiki is incorporated into the work but again I'm assuming the source isn't reliable. The wiki is mentioned in the acknoledgements section of the 12th source, here (for whatever its worth, he also thanks Wikipedia). Babelfish gave a gisted translation of the 13th source as "Alien towards that: the production of sex in Science Fiction series", unfortunately I couldn't find this interesting source so again I'm going with my gut and I'll say that this doesn't contain an adequate discussion of the wiki. The 14th source is from a page google blanked in this book. The table of contents says that that page is the first page under the section "Our First Wiki" and "The Installation". I wonder if this source even mentions the wiki? The 15th source is from sci-fi site of the week. Finally, some coverage of the wiki, but it comes at the cost of the notability of the site airing the brief commentary. The sites reviewed look mostly to be fanclub sites. The 16th, 18th, and 19th sources are the wiki itself. The 17th source is Uncyclopedia. The 20th source is the NYT article I refuted above. Will Richardson did call the wiki "one of the most impressive out there" in the 21st source but that is more of a published personal opinion than the general coverage required for notability (which he didn't give). The 22nd source is a press release from the wiki itself. The 23rd is more of a note than a source, as it expands on the material of the article instead of backing it up. The last three citations are, again, to the wiki. The first reference (via the waybackmachine) is trivial and the main point of the article was Wikipedia. A google search for the second reference only turned up this article and its mirrors. I'm not sure what to make of the disappearing source.
- Concluding this little investigation of mine, I have to remark that this is the most fraudulant batch of sources I've ever seen. Thank God Wikipedia's criteria for Featured Article's has improved since this was accepted, as I can't find any citations to justify inclusion. It's embarrassing that it's been allowed to exist so much with such a pathetic batch of sources. Add strong to my above "endorse" vote. Themfromspace (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You used over 500 words to describe in detail how "trivial" the sources are. In my mind that's an argument that refutes itself! How can something be so trivial, yet so important that you have to spend so much time, effort and words to argue against it? What if all that effort and all those words were used to actually create an article? For example,
- "Memory Alpha is a wiki website devoted to Star Trek information, self-described as 'a collaborative project to create the most definitive, accurate and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek.' It was co-founded by Dan Carlson and launched in late 2003, who decided to use wiki technology to improve a Star Trek databse that he spent about a decade creating. As of 2005, it contains over 14,000 articles about various facets of the Star Trek universe protrayed in the TV episodes and the movies from all of the Star Trek series, including articles about episodes, characters, locations, ships, and other plot elements. The contents are released under a Creative Commons copyright license. The Sci Fi Channel website scifi.com named Memory Alpha the "Site of the Week" for October 10, 2005. Memory Alpha is currently part of Wikia (formerly Wikicities), and in 2005 Florida Trend said it was "the biggest project on Wikicities so far". It has been used as a reference in both scholarly articles and in books about Star Trek trivia. Will Richardson, in his book Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, said of the wiki that it 'is one of the most impressive out there'."
- That's a decent start of a Wikipedia article right there, and I created it solely (except the bit about how Wikicities is now Wikia) from information found in the several independent, reliable, published sources that you dismiss as "fraudulent" above. It just amazes me how much time and effort people spend in order to eliminate information from the encyclopedia (leaving behind mountains of far more useless and redundant deletion discussions, which get us ridiculed in the media at least as much, if not more so than our supposed extensive coverage of "trivia"), instead of actually trying to improve it. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The elimination of information that is improperly cited makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia because it builds up its credibility. By working to eliminate articles like this I am helping Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "improperly cited"? Do you mean the cited sources were insufficient for a Wikipedia article (which I disproved by actually writing one from scratch using only the sources that you yourself cited), or do you mean the article as it exist had information that wasn't properly backed up by the cited sources (in which case it is an issue for editing, not deletion)? DHowell (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't being used as a source by The New York Times classify as NOT for a WEB? Hutch1970(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: I would argue that the length and volume of participation in this discussion and the fact that the article has survived four RfDs, highlights the lack of consensus. --Jmundo (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
