Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worse Than Failure

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. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the result was actually "no consensus to delete". To be a keep result it would have needed 2/3 of the votes to be keep, which it did not get. I left a message on your talk page about it, and you did take action, so I am making the statement here. If you'd like to update the line later you can remove this message.DreamGuy 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Amending. Yes, let's call this no consensus, because there was at least one uncountered deletion argument, namely, Adrian M. H.'s. However, in response to the above comment, AfD is not a vote, and the count doesn't determine things. In particular, although DreamGuy struck out User:67.39.194.114's comment, anons are allowed to participate, and that argument was relevant. Mangojuice^talk 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worse Than Failure

Worse Than Failure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable blog Oscarthecat 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable; Speedyable? Chrisd87 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable; 4-year old publication contributed (and continues to contribute) several new, important concepts to field of s/w development; User:John.adleson 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)— John.adleson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Got reliable sources that prove those claims? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The site is frequently cited as a source for humorous lessons of how not to do things by notable people, including Thomas_Kyte, Joel Spolsky, Raymond Chen, Jeremy Zawodny, etc. Three of those named are judges for their contest.75.59.191.233 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Please consult Wikipedia:Notability (web), e.g. "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Right now, the article does not make its notability clear at all. --Oscarthecat 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Article does not even claim that publication contributes to new important concepts, looks like just a free ad for a blog. Capmango 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteKeep Article as it stands doesn't even assert notability, all external refs are only to blog itself. Okay, all of my issues were addressed nicely. Article now explains why the blog is notable, includes sources, and doesn't read like an advert. Yay. Capmango 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete insufficiently notable blog. Doczilla 06:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep After some research, definitely notable. Spent time searching for thedailywtf.com and worsethanfailure.com and added external sources. Site is pretty big.Smauers 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) — Smauers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete There is nothing worse than failure, and this fails WP:WEB. Adrian M. H. 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of those sources don't treat the subject in a non-trivial manner. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The site is quite educative in providing 'how-not-to-do-it' examples in an entertaining way. Regardless of WP notability it is quite useful for developers. Pavel Vozenilek 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep because of the popularity (IMHO) among SW developers (at least temporarily). Printed publications had practically disappeared from their world so asking published sources won't get far regardless of its actual notability IRL. Pavel Vozenilek 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:WEB and expanding on Pavel Vozenilek's point, WTF and its content has been the subject (non-trivially) of quite a few notable online publications (from InfoWorld to Schneier on Security). While references to these publications don't add to the article, they do attest to its notability. 67.39.194.114 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)— 67.39.194.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anon IP *and* no edit history, no ability to vote here. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe this does meet WP:WEB as it's a reasonably well-known site that has external references. >Radiant< 11:16, 12 June 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.