Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirsky's Worst of the Web

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirsky's Worst of the Web

• Delete nn and vanity. Has no sources what so ever. Jersey Devil 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Mirsky's was one of the early highlights of the web. If it doesn't seem original to you... well, go ahead, name three precursors. Mirsky was reviewing the Web before Jorn Barger started the weblog concept. Zompist 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 1030 hits on yahoo [1], 784 hits on Google [2].--Jersey Devil 22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And what does that show about web history? According to your user page, you were eight years old when Mirsky created his page. You don't know what was notable then.Zompist 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Be nice and assume WP:FAITH. That said... Mirsky predates the first commercial incarnation of Google by 3-4 years. There was a time before search engines... Heck, there was a time before web browsers, when real men used Archie and Gopher and liked it. I even used hosts.txt before DNS was universal with the 1987 RFCs... Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Like Zompist said, Mirsky was a pioneer. I recall even seeing an interview with him on television, which in 1996 was a big deal for an internet figure. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I believe Mirsky started the whole Worst of the Web phenomenon singlehandedly. This isn't a great article, obviously, since someone who never heard of him doesn't appreciate Mirsky's place in Internet history...which means it should be expanded, not deleted. --Spinn 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but article needs improvement. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - definitely a pioneer website. TheRealFennShysa 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. The article does not have any sources or references, and does not satisfy the content-guiding verifiability policy. Without adequate sources this article is not encyclopedic. It's significance is totally irrelevant. Sliggy 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see references have been added to the article since its nomination, so I'll change to no vote. Sliggy 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable without question. A 'net first. Try doing more research than just counting Yahoo hits, JD. I tell ya, kids today...--Notmydesk 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What they said. One of the first widely known websites. rodii 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep, per all of the above and my own experience of early WWW popularization. Kestenbaum 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - based on some of the AfD activity I've seen, I think that WP:WEB needs to have an added notability criteria that gives weight to sites dating from the early history of the Web, since some people don't seem to be aware that the Web has a history. KWH 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Question. I agree completely, but what period would you/should we consider to be the "early history" of the Web? Kestenbaum 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I personally consider "early web" to be any site that was up before August 9, 1995 (the date of Netscape's IPO, the start of the "dotcom years"). Stev0 05:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, there's a Wikiproject starting up to improve standards for notability of early websites at Wikipedia:WikiProject Early Web History. Your suggestion of Netscape's IPO date is one of the ones they have identified as potentially a good criterion. Georgewilliamherbert 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - actually, the Useless Pages (does anybody here remember that one)? were around before Mirsky started his site, but Mirsky has definitely made his mark on the Web. Stev0 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Mirsky is notable, his site is notable. Georgewilliamherbert 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because of above. --James 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what "because of above" means? Except for the nom, yours is the only delete vote standing, and the nom's claims are either disputed (nn), unsubstantiated (vanity) or wrong (no sources). · rodii · 22:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant nn because the stuff about mirsky's site can be put onto Mirsky's page. I also agree with the nom. --James 23:05, 27 February 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.