Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walled garden (wiki)

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walled garden (wiki)

self-referential, move to meta

• Transwiki to meta or maybe to project space. Phr (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a nomination. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and the best way you can help AfD be the Best AfD It Can Be (yeehaw!) is to actually give reasons for your nomination, and refrain from treating it like a vote, and straighten your tie, this isn't high school. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep since it's a term which is thrown around a bit here, it might help to have an explanation handy domestically, rather than at another wiki. BigHaz 10:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The place for handy explanations of internal jargon, like (say) Geogre's Law, is Wikipedia:Glossary, not the main namespace. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that meta is still a wikimedia project and we can wikilink to it without needing an external link; e.g., m:exopedianism. In fact "[[m:walled garden]]" is less typing, and maybe more clearly labels the concept, than "[[walled garden (wiki)|walled garden]]">. Phr (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Meta is not an appropriate place for this. "Walled Garden" here refers to wikis, not Wikipedia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That said, Uncle G's right: "it would be handy to have this in a glossary" is not a good reason for keeping the article around. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to project space. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Guy! Have you actually read the article? You were on my C-list, dude! (sorry) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I have (and linked it occasionally). The encyclopaedic content seems to me to be functionally equivalent to Walled garden (media). There are really two things going on in one article, one describing linked and exclusively self-referential articles, the other being the usage described at ~(media). What is wrong with advocating move? That said, having it in the glossary would be satisfactory I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not truly self-referential; something like this could also be an article in the Encyclopedia Galactica. --Lambiam^Talk 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• The nomination reason is bunk: this is not in any way self-referential. There are plenty of websites, and even wikis, that aren't Wikipedia, so an article discussing a phenomenon on certain websites (particularly wikis) is entirely appropriate. There's no good reason to delete this thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see the slightest evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable in the usual sense. It's just internal jargon. We already have a whole wiki just for stuff about wiki culture, namely meta (or there's project space), either of which still seem to me like more obvious places to put the article. Phr (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll say again: Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the Internet. Neither meta nor project space have anything to do with wikis that aren't Wikipedia, and nor should they — however, there's an argument that some aspects of wiki culture should be discussed in main article space. Please realise this. Once you have become fully Enlightened on the sheer number of wikis that aren't Wikipedia (search Google, if need be), feel free to come back and talk about "notability" and "encyclopaedic". And when you do, please tell us why you didn't bother to mention all this in your nomination. Nominations are the core of any AfD discussion, and they need to be good. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• We are still required to adhere to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And whilst I agree that the reason for deletion given in the nomination is invalid, the original research problem is a valid one. I've looked, and whilst I can find sources that discuss walled garden (media) and (of course) walled gardens, I can find nothing that discusses the wiki-specific concept that is propounded in this article. This article appears to be original research, the promulgation of a new, wiki-specific, concept that hasn't gained traction in the world at large. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the PPR link at the bottom there? æ² ✆ 2006-07-24t14:29z
    • That isn't evidence that the concept has gained traction in the world at large. Such evidence would other sources dealing with the subject, independently written by other people. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• All three articles on things called "walled gardens" are pretty small and pretty similar. I think they could benefit from all being merged into the one article, and would be willing to do this later. There is still the issue of nothing being sourced, but so long as we can agree (I know the bits I'm familiar with are unobjectionable, and Uncle G's a fairly cluey chap too, so he could look over it as well) that it's all true, we could merge the content together and bung a "need references" sign in. How would that sit? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of what I've found has been source material for content that fits in walled garden (media) (I've added some further reading to that article.), which is in need of attention to bring it nore into line with what sources actually say walled gardens are. The third paragraph of this article is actually dealing with the walled gardens discussed in walled garden (media). It's no loss to lose it from this article, since that paragraph came from walled garden in the first place and in fact should, according to what the actual sources say, have been moved to walled garden (media) rather than to this article.

    Whilst in the wiki world there may be a concept of a set of self-contained pages that are cordoned off from the rest of the project (Indeed, they do this very thing at Wikinews.), I have found no independent secondary source material that addresses that. I haven't found any source material for the concept in this article. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia namespace to comply with WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its a worthwhile entry, and it talks about wikis in general not wikipedia. It definately needs sources to back it up, but the best way to achieve that is to keep it until someone can find sources for it.Adam Slack 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Walled garden (media); I heard of this concept before I ever heard of Wikipedia. Not a self-ref, but I'm at a loss for how to source it without referring to another wiki. -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to WP namespace. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't move to wikipedia:namespace or eta because it is not a wikipedia or even wikimedia specific concept, it s a wiki secific concept. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 03:59, 30 July 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.