Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Media Developer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Kimchi.sg 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Media Developer

Non-notable website forum. Violates WP:WEB and maybe WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. Go to the website here: http://www.nmdev.net/ . It is just a forum. Delete ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just found out that the article was deleted twice today already. I'm adding {{db-repost}} to the article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I speedied the article before, and I still its links are inappropriate, but I'll remove them and we'll let this AfD run, since the creator appears ready to protest. This isn't deletable as G4 until the AfD runs, by the way. Xoloz 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Xoloz 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like to vote delete, I tend to err on the side of inclusion, but this has no alexa rating, and the only google result is the website itself. Visiting the website, it appears to be just a forum, nothing more, with about 50 members. The comment that the author of the article left on its talk page (to the effect that there has been no centralized place for members of the forum to promote their accomplishments and that is the goal of the article), makes it sound like they are using Wikipedia to try to promote the forum and make it notable. Unfortunately, things in an encyclopedia should be notable already, not become notable by the fact of their inclusion. Therefore I have to find myself advocating deletion for what I believe is the first time on Wikipedia. ONUnicorn 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In reply to ONUnicorn: my comment didn't mention any need to "promote... accomplishments", so the "promotion" reason for deletion doesn't apply. As Wikipedia is user-modifiable documentation, it is the best consensual location to house the history of the group and its members (as the forum posts aren't group-editable)! Also (and in reply to Arichnad), the site isn't "just a forum" but like the best of online communities it contains a repository of specialized information in the area of web programming. There are a number of examples that can't be found elsewhere. Finally, in reply to Xoloz, there are a number of other sites that apparently fail WP:WEB that are listed (I will provide documentation that may not be complete, but exhaustive), so I wonder how strictly those standards have been applied. Also, the New Media Developer community is more than a "minor educational effort" -- maybe its not part of an Ivy League institution, but it has been ongoing for three years, with dozens of participants, hundreds of topics and thousands of exchanges. Of course, thanks for the feedback, and the opportunity to improve the article.Databoybiz 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - "there are a number of other sites that apparently fail WP:WEB that are listed." Feel free to list any sites for deletion that fail WP:WEB. Also, it's a logical fallacy to say: other editors have failed to meet WP:WEB, therefore WP:WEB is not policy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment to ~a, please note that I didn't state that WP:WEB is not policy, I stated that Editorial Standards have not been evenly applied. Further, as policy, I note that it is strongly discouraging advertising. The point of the New Media Developer article is to provide a neutral and objective, community-centered locus for defining and evaluating the group efforts of New Media Developer. But perhaps I was too strong in my judgment, as WP:WEB states that a site is notable for merely "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." That's really loose! With just that in mind, New Media Developer has been listed in school publications and online portfolios. It has been used in course material and in class content. I thought that the criteria was on the whole more strict, but I think that I still can press onward to justify how the online community of New Media Developer meets the standards as applied to other sites.
  • Keep As a programmer and designer myself, I find much of the information on these forums invaluable. It's obvious this site does not have any commercial interest or directly benefits from advertising. True, this site does not merit the 100 million users that something like MySpace does, however I don't particularly feel that it is neccessary. The whole idea behind an encyclopedia is to increase knowledge and provide facts about subjects all over the world. New Media Devloper contains valuable information, (I've come accross some great scripts and discussions in these forums so far), amazing student work, and a friendly envoironment thus far. Unfortunately, things in an encyclopedia should be notable already, not become notable by the fact of their inclusion. - There is some truth to this, however I don't think that's what makes wikipedia what it is. I vote to keep New Media Developer. I hope that Wikipedia does in fact promote traffic and use of this site. It needs more members and more discussion.--Csanfo 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note User's first post. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment to Arichnad, [ /snark ] ? While no doubt true, one might hope that Wikipedians are more welcoming of sincere efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Databoybiz (talk • contribs) .
        • Comment - No. Listing brand new users in an Article for deletion is commonplace. Sorry to keep quoting policy, but I'm trying to hold my own here. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia policies too. Wikipedia:Single purpose account says "Of course, one can only judge such users by their actions, so over time they may become more involved. But for this reason many 'brand new users' will be treated as having less 'say' at the start of their editing careers, until they have somewhat established themselves with credibility.". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "I hope that Wikipedia does in fact promote traffic and use of this site" in response, I'll add more of ONUnicorn's quote "it sounds like [you] are using Wikipedia to try to promote the forum and make it notable.". It sounds that way to me also. In addition, to WP:WEB, problems with this article are: Wikipedia articles are not for self promotion, You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. Also, read Wikipedia's vanity guidelines. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have read the guidelines linked and they are understood. Thanks. --Csanfo 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment to ~a: I have just read the WP:NOT guidelines, and I quote "You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in." That is a direct contradiction of what you wrote! And from the WP:AUTO guidelines, the true tests are "Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability." There is the further test that WP:AUTO doesn't apply "so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources." In response to the WP:WEB, hoping that the promotion of a community occurs is not the same as trying to promote the New Media Developer group. After reviewing the guidelines, I find that there is no basis for rejection within the policy, and in fact every reference to policy provides material to support the inclusion of this online community. I hope that there are editors out there who can see this as well. --Databoybiz 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - "That is a direct contradiction of what you wrote!" You are talking about: 1. "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved" (from WP:AUTO) and 2. "You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in" (from WP:NOT). No, I believe there is no contradiction here. They are both direct quotes of Wikipedia policy. Neither of them are things I wrote. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Question - Which criteria do you believe the New Media Developer website meets? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Answer to ~a; New Media Developer passes WP:WEB as I noted above; WP:WEB states that a site is notable for merely "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." I can reconcile statements 1 and 2 listed by ~a above with regard to New Media Developer, in that New Media Developer is not WP:AUTO because it is not auto-biographical, and it passes WP:NOT as the New Media Develoer Article is a verifiable, group-editable history of the goals and history of New Media Developer, both group and website. Thanks for your questions, and I'm still asking for editors to provide comments and feedback -- and most importantly, vote -- regarding the inclusion of this article within Wikipedia.
          • Comment No. Please reread the context. They're explaining the exception to the rule. WP:WEB states "This criterion excludes: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above--Peephole 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the discussion above; no evidence from reliable sources that this meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 14:55, 14 August 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.