Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. I believe there is a difference in opinion on the interpretation of policies here.

  1. WP:ASR is a logically fallacious argument in this case. We are not making self-references here in anyway. See the examples provided on the guideline page, and you will understand what I mean.
  2. Secondly, there isn't a little coverage on the topic, there is a lot of it, over the internet. Some of the sources have already been provided on the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary sources available on the subject, we aren't merely quoting ourselves or providing primary references from Wikipedia or a mirror.
  3. Thirdly, article has the potential to develop and grow into more than a stub, redirection and merging would definitely restrict that.
  4. The article on Essjay controversy was later kept because of some of the reasons stated above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

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

This page provides little or no context. It attempts to cover a subject already covered throughout Wikipedia, but instead results in an article that can be summed up by the title, like "The community of editors in Wikipedia." Wikipedia doesn't need an article about its own community, plus, it might be a conflict of interest, as it is edited by the community. Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs)

WARNING Most likely that the article will be significantly expanded during the vote and many arguments will become invalid. (I will certainly put my efforts towards this). 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete.Delete of Merge. As nominator. Vote changed due to addition of material relevant to the topic..--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Your nomination is a conflict of interest. An article about the community is highly notable, interesting, and expandable. --QuackGuru 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
How in the world is this a conflict of interest? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, does that mean the Wikipedia community isn't allowed to decide what to do with this? Who else, then? --Conti|✉ 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Vox Rationis already stated above that: it might be a conflict of interest. Editing about yourself, the Wikipedia community, may be COI according to Vox, as it is edited by the community. Millions of editors is highly notable. --QuackGuru 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Bizare Reasoning. In that case it should never have been created in the first place and should be speedily deleted - Munta 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with the nom. Not notable, unencyclopedic, conflict of interest, amongst other things. Not even sure what this article could say that isn't stating the obvious. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is possible to get into a highly convoluted tail-chasing argument here. That does not change the fact that while individual editors may be notable, the amorphous mass which is the community is not.--Anthony.bradbury 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is actually a CSD A3, since it's a substub with no real content right now. --Conti|✉ 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Millions of people from all around the world editing Wikipedia known as the Wikipedia community is notable. --QuackGuru 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia#This_is_a_free_encyclopedia_where_anyone_can_edit. The community maintaining an article on the community fails WP:AUTO, but as QuackGuru wrote, it's notable enough so we can't leave it deleted. There's also several links to this page on major Wikipedia pages, such as Criticism of Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia. - Pious7 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
These links cannot neccessarily be used as proper grounds, as the links were placed there by the author of this article, shortly after the article was written.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable article that is also unencylopedic. A redirect may also be suitable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Attribution. If the Wikipedia community has not been independently discussed, analyzed, and documented outside of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. Ironically, the Wikipedia community is documented, to a degree. Dan Gillmor wrote about it on page 150 of ISBN 0596007337, for example. There are also this, this, and this; and the community is also addressed tangentially here. Uncle G 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel necessary to comment on the fact that you were able to produce the ISBN number and page number on the spot. Well done!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A1. So tagged. Change vote to Merge and Redirect. At the very least, it may be a candidate for something in project space, but I can't put a keep on here. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad article, but it doesn't answer a question that Wikipedia can't really answer - and where the answers are missing, well, that's what the merge is for. --Dennisthe2 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per CSD A1. Though the article has been expanded to a point where it no longer falls under CSD A1, the subject still isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Thus, I suggest a merge/redirect to Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I've removed the A1 tag, expanded the article and add sources. I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources to write a decent stub at this time, but there are many reliable sources which mention the term in passing. JoshuaZ 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Changing position to Keep given that the community as a whole has recieved a notable reward.[1] JoshuaZ 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. Do I need to say more? Sr13 (T|C) 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge. There are many secondary sources that we could use to improve this article. There is media coverage almost every day. There is also lots of attributable information. This could easily be a good/great encyclopedic article. However, it may fit better if gets merged into Wikipedia. Sancho (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are a few ways in which Wikipedia has been analyzed/criticized as a social networking experiment, but that should be addressed in Wikipedia itself (or Criticism of Wikipedia) before being split off. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Meno25 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While certainly there are concerns with NPOV regarding something that is relatively close to home, and there are going to be some users who want to stack the books, the subject of this article is itself not inherently a problem. Wikipedia is notable, and one aspect of that is the people on it, or the "community of Wikipedia" . Now it could belong on Wikipedia as a section of that page, but I think there is enough information on this subject that this would have to be a spun-off sooner or later. As it stands now though, this page is minimal in terms of content, so I don't mind too much if it's deleted now, but I wouldn't say it is a problem to include the subject on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Recursive and too self-referential. Perhaps an article like this could be written but I don't really see it here. It's just not a good base to develop from. WP:CSD A1 sounds about right. Pigmandialogue 07:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There just aren't going to be enough reliable sources to make a full article out of this. I'd say merge to Wikipedia, but what's to merge at this point?--Cúchullain t/c 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) There's enough material now to merge now, but I still don't think this deserves its own article.--Cúchullain t/c 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-referential cruft. MER-C 08:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete self reference Ulysses Zagreb 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia help pages, policy and guidelines explain the detail. The community aspects of this article are just stating the obvious. Munta 10:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Article now contains notability in its own right. I'm still a little unhappy about the article stating the obvious but the new information fits best here - Munta 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Er...if we delete Wikipedia_community then what happens to us? Do we disappear into nothingness? And if we're not here,we can't delete Wikipedia_community so it remains,which means we're here to delete it... This could be very tiring :) Lemon martini 11:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wierd topic, not really sure how it could be expanded or made into a coherant subject without extensive, pointless self-referencing. Regardless of the outcome, this AfD might need to be linked in BJAODN. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Redundant. Already covered in Wikipedia. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. 4kinnel 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep it acts as a reference to serious minded people who wish to dedicate a little time to monitoring the quality of the articles, it can also act as a guide for people who wish to get involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Self-referential and non-notable. Clearly unencyclopedic. WjBscribe 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have been asked to reconsider my opinion. It remains unchanged. The fact that those who edit Wikipedia have received a notable community award should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article but does not confer notability on the "Wikipedia community". There is absolutely no need for a stand alone article and the combination of very weak notability and self-referencing makes then article especially undesirable. WjBscribe 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:ASR. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:ASR and all the above. Nol888(Talk) 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Merge or Delete with Wikipedia, it covers an aspect that should be included in the main Wikipedia article. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary self-reference, and for lack of content. At present, it's best placed as a subsection of the article on Wikipedia, with the possibility of recreating a separate article in the future if there are enough notable things to be said about the WP community, as separate from the site itself, to make an article. *Dan T.* 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-referential and non-notable (per User:WJBscribe). ElinorD (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Self reference is a style issue not a reason for deletion when we have verifiable well sourced content. Please actually read WP:SELF Also note the presence of a notable award to the community. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've seen information that reflects the idea of this article all over the wikipedia introduction sites. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment so? JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per unnecessary self-reference, lack of content, and notability concerns. --Insineratehymn(talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Self reference is a style issue not a reason for deletion when we have verifiable well sourced content. Please actually read WP:SELF. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep A valid encyclopedic topic, necessarily based on external links. Although a childish initial stub, has potential for growth. many deleters seem to confuse a wikipedia article with a wikipedia namespace article. "Wikipedia community" is most definitely a notable and intriguing subject: it is not just a bunch of graphomaniacs, dominatrices and trolls. It is also strikes me as quite ridiculous that Wikipedia article says next to nothing about those who create it. `'mikka 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I find your remark a bit offensive, as I have been here at Wikipedia for a while, and I do know the difference between Wikipedia community and Wikipedia: Community. I did not nominate it for the subjects validity, but for the ability of the subject to be covered. This would also, as I said, entail the subject to write about itself, sparking a conflict of interest...I have changed my vote to a "delete or merge" {above}, as this information should have a little coverage, but the it does not need an article...--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete self-referential and unnecessary.-- danntm T C 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge with Wikipedia - So it's not a speedy anymore, but how much could and should be said about the Wikipedia community? I think a paragraph in Wikipedia about this would be perfect. --Conti|✉ 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge with Wikipedia per Conti. Not enough here for a stand-alone article. – riana_dzasta 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge with Wikipedia The information here can always be merged. Sr13 (T|C) 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: Changed vote due to new information, etc. A merge with Wikipedia would be in the best interest IMO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wikipedia and/or English Wikipedia (anyone considered the fact that different language editions have very different types of user communities?) I don't know how much we can write about the subject without slipping to the original research territory - and besides, while the website is notable there's rarely need to make a separate article about the user community either (we've deleted these before)... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break: Warning

The Wikipedia Community article has significantly expanded since the original nomination. Most votes has nothing to do with the current article. --QuackGuru 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge I could see this being needed in the future, but right now I think we can say all the same things this article does with the Wikipedia articles we have now. Seems needlessly split. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:ASR. --Coredesat 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing argument. --Coredesat 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Still Delete My opinion hasn't changed. This article can't really discuss the Wikipedia community. There is no specific Wikipedia "community". Wikipedia is too large a body of work to have a community based around it's use (unfortunately or not) and the article does not tell us anything we can't discover on the Wikipedia page or Criticism of Wikipedia page. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Duh Merge. It's about Wikipedia, merge anything useful into there. Shenme 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The Wikipedia article is already very long. We've already broken off Criticisms of Wikipedia and the lack of space was a reason that Essjay was not merged in. JoshuaZ 04:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think significantly expanded is too strong, but I do support the intent behind the ongoing expansion, and support a relisting if further changes are made. FrozenPurpleCube 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I doubt I will end up expressing an opinion on this matter but I have a few thoughts:
  1. Encyclopedia Britannica has articles about their editors[2].
  2. An article being a stub is not a reason to delete
  3. I actually disagree with a number of the points the article makes, and take particular offense to us declaring ourselves Time's man of the year. The point of that nomination was much more about MySpace and YouTube.
  4. Much of the article is POV. Just because you can source one point of view does not make it not a point of view.
  5. Just because an article is poorly written is also not a reason to delete.

If pressed, I'd probably lean delete, but for now, I just had some food for thought.--CastAStone|(talk) 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Still Delete or merge.See above.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia. Nothing worth merging – Qxz 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, highly cited and notable. Will most likely be expanded upon even more. Smee 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Still delete That's significant expansion? Overwhelming the sad little five sentence "article" with 10 sources does not make the topic any more notable nor the article any more worth saving. Wikipedia is notable, yet that does not mean that every individual aspect of Wikipedia is itself notable. The "Wikipedia Community", while known in Wikipedia's circles and surely worth mention in the Wikipedia article (where it already is mentioned), it is not notable enough for its own article. Add to that the self-referential and unencyclopedic nature of this page, and I can't see any valid reason to support keeping it here, and there's nothing there worth merging into Wikipedia that isn't already there. I also must say that I quite object to the keep-vote "campaining" that's going around--it's typically considered quite inappropriate to harrass users to change their "votes" in AfD's, and it rarely warrants the expected results. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep Uh... can -any- of the "Delete" people please address what in policy dictates your deletion comment...? as stupid as it sounds, the "group" now passes muster for WP:BIO and WP:ATT, so is a Keep. Again, another thing that will only grow more notable in time, beyond that notability that already passes muster. What is this demented urge to scrub all articles about/possibly about Wikipedia editors...? - Denny 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, does any other Web site have a Wikipedia article on its community, separate from the article on the site itself? I don't know of any, and there are many Web sites that have communities surrounding them. *Dan T.* 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because others don't get the RS/stuff that counts to pass WP:ATT doesn't mean anything. How many websites in the Top 20 on the Internet even have communities beside us? Millions of people, active stories all over the media... this is/was inevitable and will only continue. one month, a quarter, a year, two years from now, when the press and notability about the people that build the encyclopedia continues to build, will we not talk about us because it's navel gazing cruft as the person below says? or will we be NPOV and dispassionate about ourselves as we are supposed to be about everything? - Denny 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ten independent references? Would that all stubs were so sourced. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is navel gazing cruft. AniMate 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This crap with the self-referencing has to stop. The Essjay controversy was a little notable, granted, but this is purely for the trolls enjoyment of another article to vandalize. — Moe 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Projectify or Merge or Userify or Delete , the "Wikipedia community" has essentially got 0 notability outside of the world of Wikis. This article does have merit though and would make a nice page if projectified to accompany Wikipedia:Wikipedians under the title Wikipedia:Wikipedia community. Short of that, merging into Wikipedia makes sense or userification into the article's creator's userspace. Shy of those options I would say delete. (→Netscott) 05:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's enough to say to warrant a separate article. Everyking 05:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wikipedia or Delete because there's not enough notability specifically on the community and, even if there was, there would be WP:NPOV issues with only the community editing the article. The only thing that has changed, in my opinion, is the increase of vandalism in the "see also" section to promote this article. Seriously, what does this directly have to do with wiki? - Pious7 07:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-referential original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Could you explain what [{WP:OR|original research]] is in the article? Also, as I have pointed out before WP:SELF is a style issue, it says nothing about not having well-sourced, well-cited articles like Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales. JoshuaZ 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing but self-referencial original research as said by Moe Epsilon. --Johnny89 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Could you explain what [{WP:OR|original research]] is in the article? Also, as I have pointed out before WP:SELF is a style issue, it says nothing about not having well-sourced, well-cited articles like Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales. JoshuaZ 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The synthesis of tidbits of outside information is practically the definition of original research. Yes, there are sources - great. But these sources don't support the article as a whole, just small parts of it. Recreate when multiple reliable, independent sources piece this info together. Delete as long as its Wikipedians who are doing it. Picaroon 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now. The article is only a few days old, so I suggest we watch it a while and see how it turns out. People who have concerns can contribute and suggest changes. If it is not considered suitable in a few weeks/months, nominate again. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are many secondary sources available to improve this article. SmokeyJoe 01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to project space. As an article, it looks like it must fail WP:ATT until some later time, and it is far more mired in conflict of interest issues than other Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia. It could always be moved back in the future if it looks like it is possible to properly source it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any useful content that isn't already at Wikipedia, where it belongs. Sub-articles are normally only created when the relevant section on the main article becomes unwieldy; this is not the case here, so there's no reason to move that information out into its own article. -- Vary | Talk 13:36, 12 March 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.