Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Treehouse

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Treehouse

A "private internet message board" with "67 members" does not belong in an encyclopedia. Haeleth 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Haeleth
• Delete per nomination.--Gaff ^{talk 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete per nom. doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the page should remain up. It provides insight into a different aspect of the internet world that many do not know exist. (Anonymous comment made by 148.177.1.213)

Are there any articles based on any other private clubs throughout history listed in Wikipedia? A quick search does in fact show that those type of articles do exist. Haeleth's objection to the article based on his quote of "private internet message board" seems questionable.

While some may wonder about the importance of this entry, to people interested in the cross-section of literacy, technology and social-cultural interactions, the treehouse is quite noteworthy. The phenomenon of people from a wide variety of backgrounds interacting with each other through written language is worthy of further study. Relationships are forged and broken, political sides are taken and defended to the posters' literary ability, wits are sharpened.

How does race, gender, and socio-economic status effect online relationships? Do private social worlds like The Tree House loosen the bonds of society's artificial barriers? Can there be a social world where good looks and money don't count as much as a quick wit and a glib "pen?" The glimpse provided here into the Tree house should be of interest to sociolinguists, and anyone else interested in the dynamics of vastly different people from vastly different backgrounds, voluntarily communing together through the internet. (Anonymous comment made by 67.9.151.177)

• Comment While your argument is well intentioned, and seems to be well thought out, the fact is that this page doesn't belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is not a directory of every chatroom on the internet. It is not the place to publicize your online community. Will this page mean anything to someone who is not a member of your community? I doubt it. If you want to put it up somewhere else, that's fine, however it does not belong here.--Alhutch 04:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment See WP:V. A board which, according to the article itself, is only accessible to 67 people, is ipso facto non-verifiable. This article is therefore in violation of Wikipedia's official policy, regardless of any other merits it may have. (I do not, incidentally, see that it has other merits. 67.9.151.177 has not described any phenomena not already well-known from Usenet or IRC.) Haeleth 11:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to treehouse. Pburka 04:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then redirect per Pburka. Xoloz 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The definition of encyclopedia is:A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

By definition, there is no definition of what should and should not be in an encyclopedia. To delete this article would by all means show that Wikipedia is in fact not an encyclopedia at all, but rather a web site in which a small group decides what can and what cannot be posted. This sounds like a "private" group, much like this "Treehouse" group.

All encyclopedias have a small group of people who decide what goes in or not. You cannot just add something to the Encyclopedia Britannica: does that mean it's not an encyclopedia?

In the case of Wikipedia, the "small group" includes every living human in the world. Anyone is welcome to argue whether something should or should not be included. But we also take into account precedents and policies, which represent the existing consensus of the majority of contributors, and save most people from having to vote on every single article. Several of those policies happen to suggest strongly that this article should be removed. That is why you see all these people voting to remove it. — Haeleth Talk 21:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and optionally redirect. Unverifiable and non-notable. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 21 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.