| Revision as of 15:28, 22 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →JAKAZiD: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:37, 22 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →Lostpedia: closing (overturn; relist)Next edit → |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===17 October 2006=== |
|
===17 October 2006=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====Lostpedia==== |
|
|
Request for the deletion of ] to be reviewed. I appreciate the article was previously deleted but on this occassion was removed without any kind of discussion. I personally had added the <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> template, yet the article was still swiftly removed despite my requests for review first. Please could the article be restored, if only to allow actual free debate --] 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. <b>]</b>]<b>]</b> 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*The AfD was endorsed in a DRV in July: . ~ ] 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' {hangon}} has pretty much no value on reposting deleted content. Those must come here first. ] 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** The linked deletion review is for an old version of the article, and main grounds for deletion was "shameless advertising". The new version I made today was an attempt to overcome this, however it was still removed despite my pleas for actual formal voting. Therefore, I request the content to be restored, if only for to be deleted after a real debate. The content, I believe, is objective and causes no offence to anyone, so I don't see why it cannot remain until a proper conclusion is made --] 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''List on AFD'''. I've got conflicting thoughts on this. On one hand, it's lostcruft. On the other, it passes one of the notability guidelines from my interpetration. ''']''' <sup>(] ])</sup> 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' - cruft IMHO, does not appear to fit WEB -- ] 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Patent cruft with no encyclopedic value except bringing hits to lostpedia to earn you money, non notable fansite. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' - Misplaced Pages is not the keeper of the term wiki, which is where this debate is headed, and as such should not decide how other sites use it, and how the content is defined. LOST is a very unique show in its structure of building up the story line, and generating fan speculation. It relies on the theories of the fans involved, and as MatthewFenton a former Lostpedia vandal puts it "fan cruft". Furthermore, all fan speculation is clearly marked as such, and is clearly defined seperately from the article about the episode. The article fits WEB and Notability requirements also. To add to this debate. ] and ], which the known Lostpedia vandal ] edits are allowed on the site, under less notability than Lostpedia, yet are allowed to stay on the site. --] 07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** Would you like to cite me being a vandal? and you might find because Memory Alpha is notable and is also one of the largest wikis and in the top 100,000 websites. I dont not know about Star Wars wiki as i do not endorse Star Wars existance. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Certainly <nowiki>http://www.lostpedia.com/Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton</wnoiki> and <nowiki>http://www.lostpedia.com/User:MatthewFenton</nowiki>. Furthermore, the Alexa.com 100,000 websites not only applies to the whole of Wikia, not just Memory Alpha but it has already been deemed as an unsuitable marker of notability on Misplaced Pages. Google Trends also shows that Lostpedia gets more search hits than Memory Alpha --] 07:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**** All that google trend shows is that someone likes google bombing - and the Alexa rank is for memory alphas domain not wikias. Also its patently pathetic deeming me a vandal, you must of been truely scared when i brought to light all your copyrigth violations. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****You are diverting the point of this discussion once again. Under Lostpedia policy you were a vandal, and having been banned you obviously have an agenda for the deletion of Lostpedia on here. Further more, Memory Alpha's Alexa Page rank (3,344) is exactly the same as Wikia.com's (3,344) clearly showing that the sub domain is not taken into account when looking for traffic details. Ignoring of course the fact that Alexa.com is not valid reasoning for notability. Even if taken into account, Lostpedia is currently ranked at 15,034 compared to Memory Alpha's, via its domain being 26,306 . --] 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' does not meet ]. <span style="font-family:serif;">—]✰]</span> 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn Deletion''' users above may not be aware that it '''does''' actually meet ] criteria, specifically #1 & #2 (and only one is required per notability definition), as lostpedia has been referenced by Entertainment Weekly, Time Magazine, and the LA Times. --] 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''': Notability from the Lost Experience official game means Lostpedia has more press than e.g. ], which is allowed an article --] 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''': Same participants, same lack of discussion. The votes here of previous participants will simply reflect those of previous acrimonious discussions. That said, Alexa is no longer part of Notability; nonetheless Memory Alpha (a frequently edited article of one of the editors above) is cited in the discussion here; Lostpedia ranks higher (15034) than Memory Alpha (26306) in Alexa. Also note same particpants above in a push-button response to peripherally related delete afds ]. See also relevant discussion by the same parties at ] Due to lack of productive discussion this issue may require mediation with a neutral party.--] 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Hi. I'm not invisible. I hope you will look again before concluding that this is just more of the same participants. I only got involved in this when Plktrn made repeated bad-faith nominations of other articles in some kind of attempt to make a point about this being deleted. <br>I don't care about Alexa, or Memory Alpha, or any of that. I have one question:<br>'''Where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources commenting on Lostpedia?''' Please answer that and we may continue. <span style="font-family:serif;">—]✰]</span> 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**# http://www.scifi.com/sfw/sites/sfw13095.html - SciFi.com site of the week, July 5, 2006 – which by the way is a par to Wookiepedia’s “notability” |
|
|
**# http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/WatermarkStudentMinistries_119/djdanfinalcut.mp3 – the DJ Dan final broadcast, official Lost canon made by ABC.com and the producers of the show. Lostpedia is quoted: “And just listen to this ball of lies they're chucking at our heads on the famed geek-out Internet site, the Lostpedia. That's right, it's a wiki-wiki site.” |
|
|
**# List of other references, including primary as well as secondary topic can be found by searching “Media Coverage” on the pedia site (I can’t link to it as its been blacklisted apparently?) |
|
|
**: --] 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion''', no new evidence presented since last deletion review. {{user|Nickb123 3rd}} = {{user|Nickb II}} = {{user|Nickb123}}, a ] who appears to be having some difficulty understanding part of the phrase ''multiple '''non-trivial''' coverage in ] independent of the subject'' (as well as being a sysop on Lostpedia, see www.lostpedia.com/User_talk:Nickb123). The argument that "Wookiepedia exists therefore Lostpedia must exist" is begging the question and ignoring the policy basis for the original deletion, which has yet to be addressed in this DRV. For more Lostcruft see ]. Can't people find something real to write about? <b>]</b> 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** Reliable secondary sources for notability cited per above (EW, LA Times), largely ignored in the past. Here is one very recent citation in ; there has been one other in the past, and I'll search for the other 2 mag citations when I get a chance. -] 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** Again your posting blogs, lots of websites get blogged about, '''do you have anything <big>notable</big>'''. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** You missed the bit about '''non-trivial''', even though I made it bold. <b>]</b> 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Mentions on sci-fi.com and in the Lost Experience are non-trivial. And the last time I debated this issue I wasn't a SysOp there, so that is completely irrelevant --] 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****And also I realise comparing wikis with articles isn't the best course of action, but isn't it ridiculous considering how apparently strict Misplaced Pages is that ones with no sources are allowed pages but ones where contributors are actually trying to highlight notability are not. Thus, can you blame us for protesting when clearly there are hypocritical standards --] 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***** But they are not reliable sources. The sources presented are ''either'' non-trivial ''or'' reliable. To count, there must be multiple sources which are both non-trivial ''and'' reliable. And to avoid the ] clause the request should come from someone who is (a) not a sysop on Lostpedia and (b) has a meaningful edit history on Misplaced Pages, which rather counts you out on both grounds. Also, ] is not a policy or guideline for inclusion. <b>]</b> 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****** "Meaningful Edit History" - says who? This is ad hominem. Either the sources are notable + non-trivial or they aren't, period. What does someone's edit history have to do with it? ] 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***** What consitutes a reliable source then? God? The Pope? Anyone else, because if multiple major news companies aren't reliable, and the creators of the show aren't reliable. Who is? --] 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**** ] who removed a delete request on the ] article, but added the delete request to this one, edits on Memory Alpha. I see lots of double standards here. --] 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Its amazing though that with such in-depth guidelines you brush off the notion of "ITSNOTFAIR" as you call it, as there is evidently resident bias amongst editors if one is allowed to stay whilst another isn't (though are on the same level in all other respects). Also, as said, your first point is non-applicable as you know full well I was debating this months ago, and have been made a SysOp only very recently. I know you keep saying about notability, but by that same rule all the other wiki sites with articles should fall, but why don't they? Because some editors "like" that one or are a part of it. I suspect the other wiki articles were made by someone from the site too - would you prefer someone completely unaffiliated to write about your website for instance? --] 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***''by that same rule all the other wiki sites with articles should fall, but why don't they?''<br>They have multiple non-trivial reliable sources backing their notability. And if they don't, then they will be removed in AFD if it's brought up.<br>''Because some editors "like" that one or are a part of it. I suspect the other wiki articles were made by someone from the site too - would you prefer someone completely unaffiliated to write about your website for instance?''<br>They are? Are you sure? Creating articles about one's own website is strongly discouraged here. I would definitely prefer to see articles written by uninvolved third parties, citing non-trivial reliable secondary sources. Check the references at ] — in particular, look for an ISBN and a page number. Yes, Memory Alpha is just barely over the line. But notability isn't about being almost as tall as the guy ahead of you; you must be ] to ride. <span style="font-family:serif;">—]✰]</span> 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Where are the citations for ] though, other than a Sci-fi.com mention? And as a matter of fact those in question that lack notability were nominated for deletion on similar grounds, but were instantly reverted with the individuals placing the nomination being accused of vandalism. As I stated, rather hypocritical, with a touch of favouritism --] 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****] - This isnt about StarWarsWikia, its about the nn Lostpedia. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******No its about certain users having an agenda against Lostpedia, while allowing other sites that are far less notable to have entries. Its not about Lostpedia anymore, its about double standards and a lack of editorial integrity. --] 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*******I don't have an agenda. I've never seen Lost. I don't care. I want the collateral damage AFDs and crap to stop. Notability for web sites is defined in ]. Lostpedia does not appear to meet those standards. Yes, there are other web sites here that also don't. We're not discussing those here, though. "Getting" an article on Misplaced Pages is not an entitlement and it's not fair or unfair. Please read through WP:WEB and you'll see that this isn't about doling out articles for "blessed" sites that "we" like, or about deleting sites that we "don't like". <span style="font-family:serif;">—]✰]</span> 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
********Except Lostpedia DOES meet the requirements of ]. A precident has been set by allowing Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha etc on. Especially when afd's are rejected for these sites, including by editors like ] who deleted the current Lostpedia article on the same grounds that he defended ]'s inclusion. Its double standards of the highest order. The problems will stop if other fan wikis are removed, or Lostpedia gets added. The status quo is completely unacceptable. --] 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*********There desire to get an article here seems so strong that it leads me to believe they need the traffic from Misplaced Pages. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**********Not at all, I just think a site with 31,000,000 page views compared to Wookieepedia's 8,200,000 and Memory Alpha's 16,800,000 should be listed if those two are also being listed, as it meets the criteria of ] --] 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''', now if we could just get rid of the other wikicruft that doesn't meet ] but is supported by a Pokemon-esque fanbase (] & ])...--] 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**At least that would be even handed, which at the moment is not the case. Especially when someone requested a delete on the ] article and ] removed it. Complete double standards. --] 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Continued Deletion *BUT*''' Lostpedia.com should be removed from the spam blacklist and a link added to the ] article. This is how other fan run wikis are handeled on Wikipeda. It is a great way of keeping fancruft out of the Encyclopedia. "Go to the fan wiki" we can say. -] - ] 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''', meets ] under criteria #1. Site was used by official representatives of The Lost Experience to distribute an official clue/glyph. Additional References/notes: |
|
|
*: July 5, 2006 - - by: Ken Newquist of |
|
|
*: June 20, 2006 - - by: Liz Kohman of |
|
|
*: May 2, 2006 - - by: Jason Deans of |
|
|
*:Was listed in the Official Lost magazine (Issue 6, Page 73) |
|
|
*:*www.lostpedia.com Ridiculously comprehensive encyclopedia of all things Lost. Uses the open source wiki system so is constantly updated. |
|
|
*:In an article discussing the growth of the wikipedia software, Lostpedia was featured out of thousands of other wikis<sup> </sup>. |
|
|
*: It should also be noted that MattewFenton, who ojbects to the existence of this article seems to be on a vendetta against the site after being banned. Lostpedia does not need or require additional traffic from wikipedia, but wishes to work in tandem with it. has an account on Lostpedia, and reached out to us so we can work together with Lost.wikia.com to combat vandalism and to discuss issues that we have in common. |
|
|
** Please also see Misplaced Pages's ] for additional precedent on articles for wiki's hosted outside of Misplaced Pages. That article contains only links to wikis that with their own entry in Misplaced Pages. --] 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' As the salting admin, it's difficult for me to give a fair opinion. However, I would like to AfD the article, as suggested, because I don't see any harm in doing so and it will deal with any complaints, in either direction. Thanks. —] / 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* The rewritten version was sufficiently different from the version deleted as a result of the AFD discussion that speedy-deletion criterion G4 (recreated content) should not have been applied. On the other hand, criterion A7 (no assertion of notability) probably did apply at the time of deletion. Assertions have been made here. Whether or not those assertions will carry the day is a question for AFD to sort out. '''Overturn speedy-deletion''' and immediately '''list to AFD'''. ] <small>]</small> 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Overturn'''. I do not watch Lost, Star Trek or any other shows that have been listed as having major wikis, but I'll add in my 2 cents in saying that, arguably, Lostpedia is notable. Let's review the criteria for web notability, and see how Lostpedia measures up: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. |
|
|
*Lostpedia has been the main focus of online newspaper articles from the St. Cloud Times , and The Guardian Unlimited . |
|
|
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. |
|
|
*Lostpedia won the award for 'Site of the Week' from Scifi.com, as has Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia. |
|
|
3. 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. |
|
|
*Lostpedia was started by a fan from San Francisco, and has contributors from all over the world, reaching from (but not limited to) The UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, Israel and Sweden. Reaching over 30,000,000 pageviews in it's slightly over 1 year history, it outranks Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability. Lostpedia should have a page here to sit alongside Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia, and put an end to one of the most hotly debated deletions I've seen here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards. --] 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Overturn'''. I believe this meets ] and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis. ]] 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|