Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Debate Network

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 delete. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Debate Network

This website has an Alexa rank above 2,000,000. The {{prod}} tag was removed by another user, so I am nominating the article for deletion here. NatusRoma | Talk 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete. It is a fun as well as intelectually stimulating site.
• Delete, nn website. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The lack of any real people's names is a dead giveaway (as is the list of moderators). Fagstein 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--Cini 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Is having a certain Alexa ranking an official Wikipedia policy? 2 million seems arbitrary. What is the basis of that cut off point? I think the site is certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, despite not being referred to in a published source. In my experience with debate sites over the years, I have found that ODN is a unique phenomenon. It is a well-moderated site which manages to keep a good balance between a friendly atmosphere and disallowing excessive spam. I have found no other broad topic debate sites with a comparable consistent membership and member satisfaction. All other comparably popular and professional debate sites I have found are focused on specific areas, such as religion only or politics only. It is also notable for being founded as a private individual venture, rather than by a large company. Since the disputed NPOV sentence has been removed, and the article has been expanded and reformatted, I believe the current Online Debate Network entry is an acceptable one for Wikipedia. However, if it's decided that it should be removed, I will not argue further, as I respect the Wikipedia project and its organizers. Thanks for considering allowing it to remain. Kevinbrowning 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Having a high Alexa ranking is not necessary, however it is a guideline when it comes to popularity. If the site is not popular and nobody (in the media) has heard of it, how can we find sufficient reliable, third-party sources to write an article about it? Fagstein 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the site is relatively very popular, for the type of site it is. Although it is being edited mostly by site members rather than a third party, I believe all NPOV sentences have been removed, and the general tone has been made more neutral. As long as it is written sufficiently impartially, I think it should not matter who writes it. To demand a certain person write it, even if the current writers have written truthfully, seems like the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for your following up on this. Kevinbrowning 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• • You're right that it doesn't matter who writes the article, as long as it is written from a neutral point of view. We're discussing whether the site merits a Wikipedia article at all. In theory, the content of the article on this subject shouldn't matter, because even if this article were not neutral, it could be changed into a neutral article if the result of the discuss were to keep the article. NatusRoma | Talk 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While the Alexa ranking is clearly over the limit, I'm poised to ask, since it's not an official rule regarding Wikiarticles, doesn't that seem a tad arbitrary? Because something isn't as popular as you feel it should be, does that really mean it should be deleted? I'm sure there's a lot of unpopular events, places, or people out there that deserve an article about them. If Wikipedia only hosted the "popular" things, it would be less worthy to come to than Google. Why come here if you're only going to find popular things? What happened to it being a "Free ENCYCLOPEDIA"? An encyclopedia houses unpopular information WITH the popular. Why not let it stay for a little while, allow it to be further revised, and then if it doesn't work out, remove it?Whitestone

User has 2 edits. Kimchi.sg 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• • You're right that the Alexa ranking doesn't violate a specific guideline. However, the fact that the Alexa ranking is over 2,000,000 means that this really is not a very popular website. Other evidence for this is that many of the top Google hits for "Online Debate Network" -wikipedia ([1]) are mirrors of the Wikipedia article debate, which contains a link to the forum. Furthermore, this search reveals only 40 unique hits, which is very few. There are many Wikipedia users who believe, like you, that what sort of splash a person, event, or entity has created shouldn't matter for whether Wikipedia has an article about it. There are also many Wikipedia users who believe, like me, that the amount of fame or notability that something has generated is important in determining whether there should be a Wikipedia article about it. NatusRoma | Talk 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well (NatusRoma), if this article doesn't "violate any specific guideline", then it shouldn't be deleted...period. After admitting that it doesn't violate any rules, you then went on to complain that the site isn't very popular, but this shouldn't matter as this appears to be a matter of your personal bias/opinion, not of Wiki policy. You said it yourself, there are many Wikipedia users who don't care if there is an article about an unpopular site...but there are some who do. Personal preference shouldn't determine deletions, Wiki rules should and you have admitted that this article doesn't violate any such rules. nickmanderson

User has 10 edits. Kimchi.sg 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Notability (web). Based on what I have found on Google, this website doesn't fulfill any of the notability guidelines laid out in that page. NatusRoma | Talk 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do all Wikipedia entries have detailed notability guidelines, or only Web sites? It seems to me that what's notable to one person may be of very little import to another, and vice versa. I must raise the objection of a double standard applied to Web sites but not other content, if the latter. Thanks again. Kevinbrowning 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability. The notability criteria pages for the most common content (books, companies and music, among others) are linked to on that page, on the right sidebar. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB Beno1000 02:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete is my final vote after reading and considering the arguments of those who believe the Online Debate Network article should be deleted. After reading the notability guidelines, I have decided that it is really quite vague and arbitrary, and in fact many topics other than Web sites are not submitted to nearly as stringent notability requirements, or sometimes none at all. Through personal experience I believe that ODN is a unique and important part of the subculture of online debating, and I think an article explaining what it is and why it has become popular is a credible topic for an online encyclopedia which attempts to cover all areas of knowledge and relevance. I will not argue the point further, as I think there is nothing left to say, and leave the final decision up to the longtime editors and moderators of this resource. However, I will say that several new members have joined since ODN was added as a related site on the main Debate entry in Wikipedia, and the evaluations have been uniformly positive. I leave you with this quote from a recent new member, "paintist," who found ODN after trying and being dissatisfied with several other online debating sites, and then found ODN through Wikipedia's Debate article: "It'd be pretty unfortunate to see this get deleted. As far as I can tell, this is the strongest forum available for online intellectual debate/argumentation on the internet... granted I've only been a member only a few hours. And if that's true (is there anywhere else?), then it seems like good enough information to be rooted into wikipedia." Thanks one final time for actually considering this entry's legitimacy, rather than taking immediate elitist action and removing the entry, as so many inferior Internet communities tend to do. - Kevin Browning, devoted user of both ODN and Wikipedia Kevinbrowning 03:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete: My verdict after reading over and considering the arguments here. The Online Debate Network is a type of site of which there are very few and and given that it is a not for profit site, its Wikipedia article can hardly be considered advertisement. The entry seems fine to me. Arguments against it seem very vague and ambiguous, setting double standards that don't seem to apply to any article here except this one. Further, the popularity of the site seems irrelevant to Wikipedia's giving information about it. Or do those who oppose this article think that Wikipedia should not give information about unpopular books, movies, shows, places, games and products as well? - Starcreator Starcreator 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User's only 3 edits are to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Or do those who oppose this article think that Wikipedia should not give information about unpopular books, movies, shows, places, games and products as well?" Yes, of course. Please read our notability guidelines. "Arguments against it seem very vague and ambiguous, setting double standards that don't seem to apply to any article here except this one." Please give WP:WEB a long, hard read before repeating this claim. Kimchi.sg 06:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete is my vote. I don't understand WHY this article should be up for deletion if it hasn't broken any rules, this is supposed to be a site about open information. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with this at all, many things in history aren't popular to look up, many can even be considered irrelevant to history, but it's in there for our use. Keep the article up I say, there is nothing wrong with it. "ShadowKnight 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)"

Congratulations! How'd you find this AfD so quickly on your very first edit? Kimchi.sg 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: its not about popularity, its about notability. Please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Point of order: There is a difference between a sockpuppet and a meatpuppet. NatusRoma | Talk 06:59, 30 April 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.