Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything2

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 Kept, speedily. BrokenSegue 04:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everything2

Seen it spammed around a lot in see also links that people removed so I checked out the article and the article fails: WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:VAIN. Crazecontrolthefurious 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable website. Mentions in reliable publications (New York Times; Guardian; nominated for a Webby); affiliated with and promoted by Slashdot for several years. --Muchness 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be good if the references section of the article actually cited some of this stuff, rather than citing the web site itself as the sole source of information about the web site. Citing sources is the best way to avoid having an article brought to AFD. Articles that cite sources are rarely nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. Uncle G 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a major website known by many people, and the article has plenty of sources. Diagonalfish 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It has three sources, all of which are the web site itself. Uncle G 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Correction - You are correct, sorry. The article has few good sources, but it could use some like those Muchness mentioned. Still notable; the Everything Engine created for it is also used on notable sites. Diagonalfish 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It would be ideal if it were possible to say "The References section of the article demonstrates that the WP:WEB criteria are amply satisfied.". But that is not the case. Uncle G 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • With Muchness's latest modifications, I think we can now safely say this is the case. Diagonalfish 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Muchness. Also suspect WP:POINT violation by nominator, as the account was created today, and his sole contributions have been to nominate Everything2, EvoWiki and Integralwiki for deletion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable website. Not the best -- or worse -- WP article, but there should be one nonetheless. --SuperNova |T|C| 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Kaustuv. Bad faith nom, looks like sock-puppetry. hateless 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Very clearly a bad faith nomination. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, ridiculous nomination. The article would benefit from cleaning up, but it sure doesn't need deleting. — Haeleth Talk 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per the above. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, apparent bad-faith nomination. Account created today, so sockpuppetry is likely. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (speedily for all I care), been around a long time and widely used, and has been influential on the design of other sites too (I think softlinks that some wiki engines also support originated here.) (Disclaimer: Last I checked I was in top users. If it helps, WP drains most of my time nowadays...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:36, 29 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.