Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary-X 2

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 no consensus, thus default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diary-X

This was previously nominated by an anon, voted on and deleted. The article had been rewritten to assert notability several hours prior to the closure of the previous discussion, so the AfD was contested and overturned. Relisting for the sake of completeness.

Previous AfD Discussion

Notes about Diary-X in the media

• Keep per nom and previous discussion. --Stephen Deken 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What's with this trend towards making a nomination and then making a recomendation? Stephen Deken's nomination's and "keep" opinion should be one paragraph, as this isn't a vote. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry; I seem to recall the AfD instructions saying "you should get the ball rolling by adding a vote", but they don't say that anymore (or did they ever?). Amended the previous to clarify. --Stephen Deken 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems to have a large enough community activity to warrant an article. --W.marsh 19:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nice rewrite. Xoloz 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree, well written, but the links supporting the article in Stephen's user space say "not encyclopedic" to me. When your only mention in media is having your name gotten wrong in a list...
  brenneman^(t)(c) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I'm extending this, I've stricken my recomendation. I'd prefer a wider audience, and will personally abstain in order to get it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• After some consideration, I'd like to change my recommendation to delete and apologize for resurrecting this in the first place. The site isn't overwhelmingly popular, it hasn't had an impact on anyone aside from people who are involved, and Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. I've already userfied it as a prelude to getting it off of WP, so it can be yanked. Thanks. --Stephen Deken 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Femmina 02:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Unusual nomination with low participation. Extending to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well written presentation with basic degree of online notability. Jtmichcock 01:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written page, and appears to be fairly notable page (ranking over 10,000 in 2005 is good enough for me). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 02:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 02:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably a waste of time repeatedly dragging articles of this quality back to AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • When the creator of the article says "delete" it doesn't hurt anything to ensure that there is clear consensus. No one is forced to participate, so how is it a waste of anyone's time? Have we yet found anything per WP:CITE better than the paucity linked above to differentiate this from advertising? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Pedantic mode on: I didn't create the article, I just rewrote it to be more encyclopedic. What I did create is the site the article refers to. Truth be told, I'm on the fence about the whole thing and really should be abstaining, since on some days I'm a self-centered egomaniac and on others I'm an insignificant speck of dust. My vote should be discarded and / or given more weight, etc. --Stephen Deken 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Preaky 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My normal reaction to a re-listing would be "We already decided what to do, no need to drag it up again". That being said, with so few people participating in the first vote, I can't object to the re-posting. All that being said, I don't see any independent evidence that this is anything other than advertising for one of a million random websites. --RoySmith 00:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 16:37, 27 November 2005 (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.