Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (2nd nomination)

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, however the sources in this afd need to be integrated into the article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SkyscraperPage

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

This page is unaware of the existence of WP:RS and WP:V. Not a single source outside of the page itself. No claim of being the subject of multiple, non-trivial works as required to establish notability. There are a significant number of G-hits, but they seem to be blogs of people who contributed pixel art there, failing as reliable sources. M^ask? 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Seems not to meet the WP:WEB criteria. Delete. -- Karada 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• "This page is unaware of the existence of WP:RS and WP:V..." Say what? --Aarktica 14:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I used personification. I do it all the time :) -M^ask? 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Artcile does not differs from Emporis article for example. The site is biggest open source for techdata on skyscrapers. Elk Salmon 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that without independent references, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. And the fact that it's just like another article is a textbook version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -M^ask? 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is called prejudice. You stick rules to one article, but reject to stick them to another article, which is exactly the same. It's also part of rules - WP:NPOV. Elk Salmon 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies to the tone and style of what we write, not what we nominate and don't. If the other page warrents deletion as well, nominate the thing. -M^ask? 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know it's also relates to policy and behavior of editors. Elk Salmon 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete. wikipedia is not a web directory and sources are not independently verifiable. Randella 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

does it mean Emporis should be deleted as well? Elk Salmon 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well BBC news has plenty of links to skyscraperpage.com. It's funny though, how wikipedia doesn't seem to like blog references. My own blog is syndicated in print magazines, so the print magazine content is an acceptable source but the identical blog isn't. Haha. Just to add a little more to this notability crap, I see wikipedia itself has 976 pages referencing skyscraperpage. I'd say that's notable! --Gothicform 11:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Links yes, but any BBC stories about the page? -M^ask? 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just about it [1]. Some news articles [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. Not talking about numerous magazines that bought drawings.Elk Salmon 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That first one may or may not be a reliable source, it's an opinion page. But for the sake of argument, theres one reference. None of the other ones come close to qualifying, they just use the page as a source, they aren't a source on the page. And if you wanted to source every statement to that first reference, you'd have a rather short article. -M^ask? 22:22, 24 May 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.