Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philica

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 no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 09:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philica

While this might one day be nice, it now doesn't at all appear to meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking of 3,870,352 and I find no reliable sources on this so doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Most google hits on this are to other uses of the word Philica Xyzzyplugh 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akradecki 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless notability can be established. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP because Philica is pretty big amongst published scientists, though perhaps, not yet to the general public. Philica is like the Arxiv for academia in general, and if you have used Arxiv, you'd know the significance of what I've just said. Moreover, Philica has been mentioned by Nature, the magazine read or skimmed-through by virtually all scientists, so the Notability complaint doesn't compute. I would say the current stub categorization is not quite accurate, since Philica is not just an WWW-related article. In case I don't get time to check W for the next few days, I have removed, for the time being, the afd. But, feel free to continue the discussion -Yosofun 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Removing an AfD notice is not allowed, I have put it back. As to Nature, I've now checked nature.com and found this: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04992.html There is a one sentence mention of Philica in this article, which says, "Philica, an online journal started earlier this year, goes further: it publishes any paper submitted, but ranks them based on open peer review by any reader". A single one sentence mention does not meet the requirements of WP:V, has Nature done any more substantial articles on this which I didn't find? --Xyzzyplugh 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As I have mentioned earlier, recognition by the journal Nature is considered ubiquitous publicity, at least in the realm of published science--however brief the recognition may be. Not everyone's weekend brainchild gets the honor to appear in Nature. If you don't believe there are already thousands of minds hooked on Philica, check out the site. Please note that this article does not meet the problems listed in the Deletion policies. In terms of Verifiability, this article is itself about a reputable source (see external link above); moreover, unless I have overlooked something, the Verifiability page does not explicitly require this article's deletion. Finally, this is no vanity page--I am not affiliated with Philica at all. I am pro-this-article because Philica is a legitimate online entity and journal mechanism that deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Yosofun 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Majority wins? Removed AfD again, since you haven't said anything for a while now. Put it back if you disagree with any of what the Keep'ers have said. Yosofun 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no reason to delete this page. Since when has Alexa rating been the standard of notability? A Google search produces several references to it. What makes Philica notable is that it is a new approach to scientific publishing. I think this is of interest to the reader. This is what matters, not Alexa rating. Alan Pascoe 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Philica is notable if only from a historical perspective, being a major change the methodology of peer review New299 11:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to closing Administrator. Yosofun has repeatedly removed the AfD notice from the article, despite my explaining to her on her talk page that this is not acceptable. I think this has been done not out of bad faith, but out of simple misunderstanding of the AfD policies. An official notification that this is not allowed seems to be in order here. --Xyzzyplugh 13:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The AfD page needs Cleanup or, at least, a brief outline of the steps involved in an AfD -- with moderator intervention explicitly stated, if such is the new word. It would be nice if certain users spend less of their time deleting valid articles, and more time on updating the policy pages into more concise versions. Sadly, I also suffer from promiscuous-deletion paranoia. A number of pages I've started were deleted without adequate reason, and I only retroactively discover the mal-deletion a couple of weeks later. Interestingly, some of the pages I've started were deleted, then recreated a short time later and have since not been recommended for deletion. Users who spend their time weeding out articles really ought to spend more effort in judging the validity of certain articles -- and whether the article meets the criteria for removal. Yosofun 22:28, 19 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.