Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Site

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. Cool Hand Luke 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Site

Open Site (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Was Proposed for Deletion, but I'm moving it to AfD since it's an old article and the creator and many of the major contributors no longer seem to be active - let's give it a proper discussion. --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PROD reason given by User:John Broughton is:

Site is non-notable, based on Google searches of the founder and the "foundation" which owns the website; website seems to be more a link/ad farm, not an encyclopedia; Open-Site Foundation, Inc. appears to have no Form 990 on file with guidestar.org, so I have doubts that this is in fact a non-profit, which makes this article even more of a pure promotional piece

• Delete - for the reasons I gave at the prod, and because the article is unreferenced/unsourced, and has been tagged as such since February 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- acknowledged spinoff of Open Directory, helps keep our coverage of GFDL encyclopedias complete - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - what is the basis (source?) for saying it's a spinoff? For example, looking at this dmoz.org page, I see it's listed, along with Wikipedia, as a sister site. Also, if it's really a spinoff, then why not just a redirect to Open Directory Project, and a brief paragraph there? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • David Gerard's assertion probably doesn't have a source. Certainly, most of this article doesn't. I can find a source that says that the project was inspired by the Open Directory Project, which isn't quite the same: BADAN BARMAN (2007-02-02). "MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS BY USING GOOGLE CUSTOM SEARCH ENGINE VIA GOOGLE CO-OP" (PDF). 5th International CALIBER — 2007, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 08–10 February, 2007: 6. . But that's about the only independent source on this subject that I can find, and it doesn't support most of the content of this article. No-one apart from M. Barman, and of course the subject's own creator, has documented this subject at all. And M. Barman gave it just a paragraph in a list of on-line encyclopaedia projects. The primary independent documentation appears to be being done here, in Wikipedia, first, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Even if this project is not legally "tax exempt" yet does not mean this is not a non-profit project or a spam farm--even if their ads are poorly implemented. This project has been around a while, has a history, and has unique content. That said, this site is not a spam farm and is certainly notable. We've kept a lot less notable sites than this (regarding inclusion)...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflewoman (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep May not be important now, but it once was, so it still is notable. DGG (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - What criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) do you see the website as meeting? (Please be specific.) If you can't point to any specific criteria there, then are you defining "notability" in some other, non-standard way? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Well, we have an article for Citizendium--only real difference is that Citizendium has a few press releases and no ads. I'd say Citizendium is just as notable as Open-Site. Further, if you search just open-site.org on Google, you'll find that the site is quoted and referenced quite a bit legitimately. After some Googling I'd say this meets criteria items one and three.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.156.197 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Your personal evaluation of notability is irrelevant. Notability is not subjective. Multiple non-trivial published works by sources independent of the subject demonstrate notability. You have not cited a single one. Counting Google hits is not research. Finding sources that discuss the subject in depth is research. Neither you, nor anyone who has edited the article, nor anyone who has argued here in favour of keeping it has done that. You certainly haven't made a case for the primary criterion being satisfied. You haven't even made a case for most of the content of this article not being original research — primary historical documentation being written first by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not fame nor importance. Notability is demonstrated by being noted. So far, we have one person independent of the subject who has ever written about it, who wrote 1 paragraph on it, and no sources at all for most of what this article says. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The project is of historical significance in that it was one of the early attempts at a free online encyclopedia. The article contains helpful background on it. It is interesting to compare its approach to that of WP which was growing up in about the same period and the contrasting results. Besides that, it's probably notable enough; seventh on Alexa's list of encyclopedias. Excluding it would seem to be an expression of the strain of Wikipedia partisanship which seems to color attitudes among some editors (not necessarily any involved in this afd). -R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please prove your assertion that the project is of historical significance by citing sources where this project has actually been documented in histories. I didn't find any. Sources! Sources! Sources! Arguments that something is historically significant without sources to show where historians have deemed it to be significant won't wash. Arguments that we should keep unsourced original research simply because a Wikipedia editor personally thinks the subject to be significant won't wash, either. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have absolutely no proof to offer, sourced or not. All of the above was just my opinion (other than the Alexa reference). I had never heard of this Open Site thing until two days ago when I saw the name in passing. I looked over the site, then checked to see if WP had an article; it did, and it was informative and interesting. Since the article was better than I hoped for I was surprised to see it was up for AfD. I gave the situation some thought and put that down. The sort of wide range of overviews that WP provides is very useful and rather unique on the web; since WP is not paper and the cost of keeping the article is low, it seems that it would be a shame to throw this sort of useful article out. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't understand why this discussion is being held. I edit at the OEP as do many Wikipedia editors (past and present). The fact is that it is a small example of one possible form of an encyclopaedia whatever that term now means. No one (except maybe KNOL) can compete (if competition is the right concept for knowledge workers) with Wikipedia but there are people who like the notion of a controlled terminology or ontology to try to encapsulate small items of information. To exclude it seems to me to smack of arrogance or more likely someone who has a gripe against past editorial control. It is true we are struggling at present as many of our prolific editors have moved to Wikipedia but we still have some interested and active editors. It is part of the knowledge web and I am surprised that anyone would want to censor that. 58.174.160.27 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: We're having the discussion because WP:V and WP:RS and WP:N essentially say that an article should have reliable sources, and where it does not, it's an indication that something isn't notable. Despite statements like if you search just open-site.org on Google, you'll find that the site is quoted and referenced quite a bit legitimately, above (and yes, I've looked), no one has added a single source to the article during this discussion. All there has been so far is hand-waving about importance and speculation about motives. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As an editor at another project, you may not be familiar with our content policies. Our content policies are not to simply take without question whatever people write. Our content policies are that we don't document the heretofore undocumented; that we require that readers be able to check everything against outside reliable sources that have been published, fact checked, and peer reviewed; and that to warrant an article a subject must have been covered by multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are independent of the subject, so that we can write a properly verifiable, properly neutral, and full article on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • KEEP: Milarky! Verify it then, do not delete it! There is no reason to delete this article other than the fact that Open Site is a competitor. They may be far behind Wiki and not a current threat, but they are a credible and active encyclopedia. Just because it does not adhere to Wiki's guidelines or live up to Wiki's standards does not diminish the effort or minimalize it's signifigance. There have been a plethora of additions in recent months since the new editing format (Open Site 2.0) has been put in place and the forum is active daily. Please restore the article and your own credibility and move on.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Site" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.48.55 (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a borderline case these days, but I'm swayed by the arguments above. It was a nascent competitor to Wikipedia in the early days that tried to do it through a much different system, and essentially failed. It was notable once, and thus, for our purposes, is still notable. References would be a plus, but it would be nice if the folks above who insist on patronising those supporting the article being kept would actually do some of their own research, rather than making wacky and ill-researched claims - a "link/ad farm"? What the hell? Rebecca (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's been a lot of hand-waving in this AfD about open-site's notability, but I have looked for sources and found none, and I notice that nobody who has called for the article to be kept has provided any either. Sorry, the keep votes all seem to be pure WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:INTERESTING. --Stormie (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (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.