Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adequacy.org

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 Keep improved article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy.org

Adequacy.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB. No real claims of notability, sources. Full of original research. Tagged it and requested sources over 2 weeks ago with no responses. Delete as failing WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Adequacy's infamous "Computer Hacker" article was featured on the TechTV program "The Screen Savers", and in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the "serious" satire piece "Why The Bombings Mean We Must Support My Politics" was actually syndicated by AlterNet. This should be more than enough to meet WP:WEB, but the problem is that given the amount of time that has passed, it is difficult to document these references (I found AlterNet's copy of the Adequacy article here and will add it to the article page later, but "The Screen Savers" has been off the air for some time). Though this page could use some work, deleting it seems ridiculous to me, particularly when there are articles like the one for Segfault (website) that contain no more claims of notability and yet are (apparently) perfectly acceptable. 152.61.42.109 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said that page was acceptable? You do know that people can create pages whenever they want, don't you? That's kind of the point of this site. Recury 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that the Segfault page has been around for two and a half years and that it has (apparently) never been nominated for deletion is a pretty good indicator that it is acceptable. For the record, I'm not suggesting that the article be deleted -- as somebody who fondly remembers Segfault, I would consider deleting its article to be as ludicrous as deleting Adequacy's.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.61.42.109 (talk • contribs)

• I know nothing of Segfault, but that article as it stands violates several Wikipedia policies as well. There are many bad articles on Wikipedia - that doesn't mean there should be more. Wickethewok 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, reasonable enough. I didn't write the original article, but I could certainly take a stab at reorganizing / rewriting it. Adequacy certainly should pass WP:WEB, but you are correct when you point out that the article, in its current form, does not establish this. Seventypercent 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Site is notable. Even though the site is down for some time, google still gives a lot of hits. Also links are provided to various sources. Seems to be strongly relate to kuro5hin Sander123 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• All the sources listed in the article are links to the website itself. Wickethewok 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• kuro5hin and google groups were referenced, more references have been added after your call for deletion. Anyway the point is, the site is notable, more notable than many other sites. If you search for [1] you'll find many hits on many sites. You may want to know something about the origin of this and other stories. That's kind of the point of this site. Sander123 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Recury 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notablity. The did have some funny stuff, but a defunct website is unlikely to get more notable, and I don't see that it made enough of a splash. Edison 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is your son a computer hacker? That bit was hilarious! The site gets plenty of hits, but they're almost entirely from weblogs linking to various adequacy.org articles. I can't find anything that meets WP:WEB criterion, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The nominator is correct that the article, as it is currently, violates WP:OR. JGardner 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep. Recent edits of the article have provided sources that satisfy WP:WEB criterion "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". These sources include G4TV, The Standard, Alternet and The Register. JGardner 10:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly we don't have secondary sources to document the facts in this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• I hope that the material that I added last night represents a good-faith effort to address the WP:WEB and WP:V issues with the original article. There's plenty more that I intend to add, particularly in reference to notability, though with the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday it may be a few days before I can really get to it. At any rate, I hope that any decisions regarding deletion in the short term are made with this in mind. Seventypercent 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the sources you cite are either blog posts or message board threads of some sort. Several of them don't even mention Adequacy.org. The 8 sentence thing on TechTV is the only thing I'd really qualify as any sort of source, though a single "Site of the Day" mention isn't that impressive (imo at least). Wickethewok 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not all of the sources I added were intended to establish Adequacy's notability. I listed some of them to document the background information that I was providing (i.e., Eric S. Raymond's post-9/11 comments and the reaction to them, the specifics of the Koleen Brooks story, etc.) Were I reviewing this article, I would certainly expect this information to be documented, so I documented it. I can appreciate your opinion that the Screen Savers appearance was unimpressive, but one of the goals of having subjective guidelines such as WP:WEB is (hopefully) to remove individual opinion from the process. A segment on an internationally-broadcast television program may not be impressive, but it is also not trivial. You did not comment on the AlterNet syndication; while I suspect that you would also find this unimpressive, the fact remains that Adequacy was paid a monetary fee for the rights to an article by a syndication service that receives millions of visitors per month. (Incidentally, this could arguably fit either the first or the third criteria for WP:WEB, the third being "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.") The bottom line here is that I believe the concerns cited in the deletion notice for this article were entirely legitimate; as such, I spent many hours poring through Google (and G4TV.com's excruciatingly slow Web site) and augmenting the content, and based on my reading of WP:WEB, I believe that the concerns have been adequately (if you'll pardon the pun) addressed. Seventypercent 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.36.9 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V. There are "sources" now, but they're extremely flimsy. Several are blogs, and a lot of them don't even mention Adequacy.org at all. I certainly don't see the sort of non-trivial coverage by reliable publications that we require. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please refer to my 05:00, 24 November 26 reply to User:Wickethewok since the substance of your comment is (in essence) identical to his. I would appreciate a comment on (or at the very least an acknowledgment of) that justification; if the fate of this article hinges on a judgement call as to whether TechTV/G4TV and AlterNet are "well-known", then I would hope that the admins would want to err on the side of inclusion, particularly when this article (with the new material) documents itself better than the majority of other articles in similar categories. Seventypercent 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Incidentally, I've just added an additional reference to an article in The Industry Standard. I can keep doing this, but from my perspective, all that I'm doing at this point is demonstrating that I know how to use Google. Seventypercent 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Sander123 and 152.61.42.109. --- RockMFR 07:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:WEB WP:V. No one has shown that this artcile doesn't meet these requirements. There are plenty of references and external links. I don't know there is such a mass afd for trolling related articles recently but people have to use judgement here. Read WP:WEB and WP:V this article meets it. --TrollHistorian 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This was certainly no troll AfD. Visit the page BEFORE the AfD nom and you'll find that nearly all of the sources that now satisfy WP:WEB were added after the nomination. The AfD nom has prompted a vast improvement in the article. JGardner 10:19, 28 November 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.