Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 6

Category:People from Riverdale, New York (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York also included.

Category listing individuals from Riverdale, Bronx was deleted improperly in the face of consensus supporting retention and the inclusion of clear arguments for retention under Wikipedia policy. Administrator who improperly closed the CfD acknowledges that there are valid arguments for retention, but has stated in the close and in discussion that he disregarded valid arguments he disagrees with and imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus. As the sole justification for deletion in this case was the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention, these improper actions should be overturned. Similar improper deletion by this same admin in the face of clear contrary consensus was also a factor in Category:People from Greenwich Village, which is also included here. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn In the face of consensus to keep and acknowledged valid arguments for retention, there is no place or justification for deletion based on arbitrary biases. Consensus is turned into a joke if any admin is granted unlimited discretion to overturn decisions on a deus ex machina basis. Concerns expressed regarding possible overcategorization have been addressed and are easily resolved, limiting such categories to articles with places, a suggestion that was disregarded by the closing admin. Given the improper close, overturing is the proper action. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. Several of the keep arguments: Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood, We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts. Consensus is not a vote count, and not all arguments are created equal. The delete arguments were simply stronger. --Kbdank71 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the excuses that the admin falsely defines as "simply stronger" and that were accepted by User:Kbdank71 for deletion -- "People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime." and "Merge per Otto" -- offer no justification under Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of the category. The arguments in the nomination -- "Single entry category without a parent category for the neighborhood." were addressed under Wikipedia policy and no longer relevant. The stronger arguments for retention, based on Wikipedia policy, were simply discarded. Admin simply refuses to respect or accept consensus without improperly inserting his biases. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn no valid arguement for deletion. DGG (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't CFD 2. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• No valid arguments were presented for deletion at CfD, hence the deletion was invalid. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• A number of valid reasons for deletion were offered. You may not like those reasons but your personal dislike has no bearing on whether the CFD was closed correctly. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• The admin was mistaken in considering them valid & we are here to correct his misjudgment. He closed on the basis of his own doubts that "are people notable from where they live?"--which is not relevant --since a category isnt about notability, the people are already notable. He further accepted the argument that he didnt like people by categories, though even he admitted it was not in question here. And then he accepted the worst argument of all: that some of the people were mistakenly in the category. No valid reasons. DGG (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not a defining characteristic is most certainly a valid reason for deletion. So is avoiding category clutter that will be caused by putting people into neighborhood-level categories for every neighborhood in which they have lived. So is hindering navigational utility by fracturing an already splintered category into ever tinier and tinier slivers. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• That deserves an amen, brother Otto. Postdlf (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Nothing procedurally wrong with the delete. While there was a small response, the deletion reasoning was sound and the Keep reasoning was that somehow this neighborhood was notable (with nothing to back up that assertion). -- Kesh (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - the arguments for keeping were weak and generic, relying in large part on the problems that are inherent in the People from categorization scheme. As the closing admin correctly noted, there are indeed problems with that entire scheme but the problems with it in no way prevent us from dealing with particularly problematic categories as they arise. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the arguments for keeping were really about why the neighborhood should have an article, not about why it makes sense to categorize people by neighborhood of association. There are significant problems with the subnational "people from" categories as a whole, and those problems are far more egregious when dealing with something as tiny and amorphous as a neighborhood, which lacks formal, agreed-upon boundaries and is far more easily and commonly moved in and out of than a city. So keeping people by city categories, for example, by no means necessarily leads to keeping people by neighborhood categories. Postdlf (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse It's great to see Alansohn up to his old tricks. First there's the ridiculous and outraged overstatement, over-the-top denunciation and periphrastic caricature of the closing admin, who "imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus." Then, for good measure, we have the same point expressed with a slightly different emphasis: the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention. Then, Alan, so impressed by his own hyperbole, !votes to endorse his own nomination. Oh, it's too funny - worthy of Ionescu. Anyway, endorse and keep deleted as a proper and procedurally good close, as noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

this is a violation of NPA-- please refactor. We're discussing the arguements , not the nominator. DGG (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the braying schoolmarm DGG; it's tedious. Alan's nomination is over the top in its caricature of kbdank's close. Calling him out on that is not a personal attack. Eusebeus (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the closer stated that the category had problems of verifiability (articles were being added of persons that had no source for residence there). The commenters didn't establish why exactly it was important to note that a person had lived at Riverdale and the closer correctly assesed so (aka, the need for the category was not explained). The parent category was created on-the-fly to try to save the category and it seems that it had the exact same problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, creates verifiability problems as well as overcategorization. Closer was somewhat outwith the apparent consensus but the end justified the means as far as I am concerned. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• In other words, admins can ignore what you admit as "established consensus" "apparent consensus" when they dont approve of the result and argue as here one side of the case in the closing, rather than participate in the debate and wait for someone else to close?DGG (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• You probably should not put the words "established consensus" in quotes as it implies that Stifle actually used those words. Stifle said "apparent consensus" which is quite a different animal. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Otto, you are correct, so I just fixed it.DGG (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• And, of course, WP:V is a core policy and it can't be overriden by consensus on either AfD or DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

aside from mentioning that consensus determines the interpretation and application of all policy, a question of WP:V would apply to individuals, and their presence in the category can be challenged. DGG (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, let me rephrase that "consensus at one AfD or one DRV can not overturn the consensus behind the current interpretation of policy". As far as I know, consensus at WT_V is that you can't overturn WP:V claiming consensus on AfD or DRV. You can go ask there if you don't believe me. Wikipedia:Deletion policy also says "Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to (...) content not verifiable in a reliable source (...)". You should go to the talk page and say that you want the wording changed to include "unless there is consensus between CfD commenters that WP:V can be ignored for a certain category". I think that you can imagine what they will tell you about that. Btw, I had not noticed that reasons for deletion include Wikipedia:Overcategorization which would probably apply here. The page says "However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category", I wonder what the policy says of creating categories on non-verified facts on an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse clear overcat, while I could rant about the whole "people from" tree being an exercise in weasel words, "from" meanining whatever it means to any one at that moment in time, I will focus on its wholly inappropriate application to neighborhoods, which due to their notability have articles - rightly so; because it makes no allowance for whether someone "from" Greenwich Village has anything to do with whatever made the neighborhood notable. We don't have that issue with cities, towns, villages, settlements; they are inherently notable, so you can be from Detroit and have nothing to do with MoTown music or the auto industry, it's just where you're "from" (whatever that means), but being "from" Greenwich Village, or "from" The Castro, say, has an implied meaning that doesn't apply to everyone who meets someone's definition of "from" and gets dumped into the cat. The other reasons that this is overcat is that even if we could absolutely define the extent of these neighborhoods, which seems to be in flux and differs according to the period or whether the neighborhood is "in fashion or not" in real estate agents' parlance, people move around between and among neighborhoods with some frequency more than between various cities (especially given the liberality of someone clearly from a distant suburb being dumped into the category as being "from" the distant main town any way); it's transitory and having lived for a year or two in a particular neighborhood is probably trivial unless it's Chernobyl (recently) on one's being. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• You get an amen as well, brother Carlossuarez. Postdlf (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Riverdale and GV are more than geographic regions, but also cultural ones, as applied to the sort of things that produce notability at wikipedia. It's a reasonable grouping for a great many literary and musical topics. GV is better known, but they're both of major historical importance that way. DGG (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good reason for maintaining a list of notable residents, which can include such salient facts as when they lived in these neighborhoods and what impact if any they had on the neighborhood or the neighborhood on them. That would be quite an interesting article, as opposed to a dry alphabetical clutterful category. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Riverdale, New York already holds such a list of notable residents, each one with a short mention of why they are notable and a source for its residence there. The articles on individual persons can link to this article is for some reason it was important for their biography that they had lived at Rivendale and not somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

but that's not what Wikipedia does--your argument would invalidate all List of people from articles, and this sort of article is well accepted. As for links, any article for a where the place is even mentioned in any context at all in the article important or not, will automatically be linked to the city regardless of "importance in the career" that's what Wikipedia does with internal links. This list is much more specific, as it ought to be. DGG (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• hum, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I meant to say that the list on Rivendale article is adequate and correct, and that it's better than the category. I'm not sure how this affects any "List of people from" articles, except for non-US lists that have lots of unsourced red links like List_of_people_from_Andhra_Pradesh and ought to be mended anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn as a fairly clear "no consensus" from looking over the CfD with strong arguments to keep the category. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Debate was closed incorrectly as delete instead of no consensus (2 keeps, 1 delete, 1 "delete per nom" who may not have read the arguments), with a very poor initial rationale of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus isn't vote counting. --Kbdank71 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nor is it formed by one person. MrPrada (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus is worthless if only one person has a vote. Kdbank71, in his blatant refusal to respect consensus, has turned himself into judge, jury and executioner. Why do we bother with discussions if one individual can take it upon himself to spit in the face of clear consensus. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Saying that the nomination was based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a gross mischaracterization of the nomination. Second, that the initial reason given in the nomination may not meet your standards, the closing admin does not take only the reason offered by the nominator into consideration. Here, the nominator weighed the arguments offered by other editors, including the non-definingness of the category, the subjectivity involved in deciding that someome is "from" a particular neighborhood, the category clutter that would result should people by neighborhood be widely implemented and the damage to the navigational utility of the category system should fracturing an already fractured categorization structure continue. These were weighed against such arguments as (paraphrasing) 'the neighborhood is important' (which is why it has an article) and 'we shouldn't blame people for moving from one neighborhood to another' (as if categories are rewards for good behaviour or something). Finally, I find it more than a little amusing that the editors wishing to overturn this decision can't even decide amongst themselves whether there was supposedly no consensus or a "clear consensus." Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

it may be unclear that there was sufficient consensus for a keep close rather than no-consensus, but that does not mean there was sufficient consensus for a delete close. DGG (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find all the humor you want in "no consensus" or a "clear consensus", but I find it rather disturbing that there is no one, not even the closing administrator or his apologists, who believes that there was a consensus for deletion. The basic and fundamental concept of consensus has been tossed out by an admin who acknowledges that there were perfectly valid arguments for retention, ones that he arrogantly chose to ignore. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin's whole basis for his decision was that the arguments for retention were not "perfectly valid" but instead weak and missing the point of why these are problematic as categories. No one here has yet responded to those criticisms, which Otto in particular has very clearly restated above. We're discussing categories. There are established criteria for what make good, useful, and even necessary categories. That's a very different discussion from what makes a valid article topic or sub-topic, which is instead what comments on the importance or historicity of the subject matter are relevant to. So please shift your gears to addressing those category-specific concerns, if you can. But as someone who has personally created a number of articles on neighborhoods, I would implore you to instead direct your energies to improving article content. Articles on the neighborhoods should of course include well-referenced histories, both political and cultural, of who had an impact there. And lists of people associated with a given locality can be organized by the kind of connection (born there, worked there, etc.), by chronological relationship (such as by birthdate), or by field of the individual, and can be annotated and sourced. I've tried this before (see List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio) and would appreciate any help in improving the formatting. I think we'd be better off if these lists would replace all subnational "people from" categories, as these actually have the potential of being useful, unlike an alphabetical dumping ground category for everyone who ever set foot in a place for however long and for whatever reason. Postdlf (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Overturn/Relist. I agree with the outcome (that this category should have been deleted) but it is a bit .. how shall I say .. inappropriate for the closing admin make what is essentially a unilateral decision. A more appropriate closure would have been no consensus or to relist for further discussion. Arkyan 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remark The outcomes for the 2 very similar discussions (neighborhoods in NYC) are differnt - one gets upmerged to the borough, the other is deleted. Anna Wintour who is a soureced resident of Greenwich and was in P from GV is now not even 'from New York'. Now the arguments were mailny that neighbourhood is too specific. No argument has been put forward about borough, or city, so it seems unreasonable for a cfd to affect these less specific catgorires. The closer should perhas say that delete is not an option and instead merge up to 'PPLe from Manhattan' and let there be a cfd on that if reqd. (I endorse the merge but not the delete.) Occuli (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't need anyone's approval to add them to the appropriate borough or city categories. That should have been done here. Postdlf (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly pertinent. Sgt. bender (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - Wow, I get to use an oft misapplied link appropriately: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. (Oh and throw in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for good measure.) This, as noted by the commenters and the closer is simple overcategorisation. (Indeed it looks rather close to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location.) A list of such people would likely be deleted as WP:TRIVIA. And of course there's always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which may actually apply in this case. (It rarely does when referring to categories). So in all, this is a "nn" intersection. (Looking over Notability is not inherited, as well.) And what do you know, that's what others in the discussion said, and was re-affirmed by the closer. Endorse deletion - jc37 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Category:People from Riverdale, New York and Overturn Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York. The cases made for both categories are very different. By allowing Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York to remain deleted we are in fact saying that significant settlements can not have a category. I'm not sure that is what is intended. For this category an overwhelming, clear and convincing case to keep was made. For the Riverdale category it is not clear that it should be kept. I guess one could ask where is the dividing line between what is kept and what is deleted. It may take a while for some consensus to develop on where that line is. I'm also surprised that most of the opinions here seem to be applying the same logic to both nominations. Almost looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT v WP:ILIKEIT. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is also an additional possible outcome from this discussion. And that would be to listify. This addresses the notability for a person to be included along with sources. However if that direction is taken here, then we need to be ready to apply the listify option to the rest of the 'People of' categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I personally would like to see all subnational "people from" categories listified, because they are all vague and ridiculously overinclusive to the point of making the groupings useless. But short of that, it is completely sensible to at least draw a line as to which ones are permissible and which ones aren't based on whether the settlement has a formal political existence, such as states and municipalities, so as to exclude categories based on informal areas such as neighborhoods, which also tend to be much smaller geographically than your average municipality...not to mention esoteric to nonnatives. It doesn't matter whether it's a "significant" neighborhood such as Greenwich Village or not, and you should know from experience that allowing a category for one inevitably turns into a system of categories for all. Once again, a neighborhood's significance is why it merits an article; it doesn't follow at all that it makes sense to categorize anyone's association with that neighborhood. We do not categorize actors by the television series they have acted on, notwithstanding the significance of those television series, nor do we categories workers by the companies they have worked for, notwithstanding the significance of those companies. Significance is clearly not enough. Postdlf (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak relist on grounds of no consensus. Reasonable arguments both sides [and even it were a mere vote-count, you get 3 votes to keep and 2 to merge (3 if you include nom.).] I would be inclined to merge on the grounds that Riverdale is not incorporated, and so the members of this category can easily be subsumed into category:people from The Bronx, but I simply do not see how there was a consensus at the time of closing. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RomexSoft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has been changed and even the slightest hints on advretisement have been removed. It would be highly requested to restore the article so that appropriate editing could be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuegoazul (talk • contribs) 08:30, May 6, 2008

• endorse It has been deleted repeatedly by a number of different administrators for both G11, and A7-- no indication of importance. I have looked atthe last deleted version, and there is indeed nothing that makes a reasoanble argument for notability or importance. We should see a draft of an article with some 3rd party sources for notability before permitting restoration. DGG (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse nothing in the article to indicate notability. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and come back once you can provide evidence this company meets those requirements. If you are employed by this company then I strongly advise against writing an article for it. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• It certainly read like an advertisement to me, hence my involvement in one of the deletions. It would be best if you have a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and then, if you still believe you can create an acceptable article, do so in userspace (e.g. at User:Fuegoazul/RomexSoft), with reliable sources, and then bring that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is nothing to indicate notability of this company. Moreover, the user page User:Fuegoazul reads like an ad for this company as well. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Spammy article with no claim to notability by a succession of single purpose accounts, the requester being the latest. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Inciclopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was kept at AfD even though only one good source was found. As usual a bunch of Uncy' users voted keep. The article is almost entirely original research, so notability of this particular website isn't established.

• According to Alexa.com the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web.
• Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to meta:List of largest wikis

Sources evaluation

• http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/73061/index.php

  This is just an article saying that 'Frikipedia' was closed down. As far as I can see, 'Inciclopedia' isn't mentioned in it.

  http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Inciclopedia

  An wiki article from the old spanish uncyclopedia, unreliable and looks like nonsense.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WM2006_0060.jpg

  A picture of Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia..

  http://desciclopedia.pt/wiki/Tio1.jpg

  Primary source of an image on the site..

  http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikia.com

  Alexa.com page for wikia.com showing that 8% of traffic to wikia.com goes to the site (according to alexa anyway) and it's the third most popular wiki of wikia.com

  http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2006/09/16/LUCSTDI05LU1609.htm

  The only decent substantial coverage from a newspaper. I don't read Spanish so can't say much about this.

  http://www.cuatro.com/videos/index.html?xref=20071114ctoultpro_6.Ves&view=ver

  A tiny mention on a TV show. "Inciclopedia was also mentioned..." Otterathome (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't go around endorsing my own closures (evaluating my work is something I leave to others), but I will give a rationale for my close, and note that I have given my reasons on my own talkpage. First, the reasons given to delete were "Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB.", "another non-notable wiki", "This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable." These arguements are largely assertions of non-notability, and when the discussion contains people who argue for notability, they don't carry all that much weight. The fact that Rataube added a section on notability, and was able to produce a third-party source addressed the main concern in the nomination, that there were no third-party references. In short, there was in my view certainly no consensus that the article should be deleted, and with some of the concerns given by the nominator alleviated by the presence of a third-party source, I chose to close it as "keep" rather than "no consensus". Two points about this DRV nomination: An argument given in this DRV nom is that the article is "original research", this was not presented in the AFD. Looking at the article, I don't think that the article suffers from blatant OR problems, rather much of the article is sourced from the website itself which is OK to a certain extent (see WP:SELFPUB), and there is also some third party coverage now. Finally, the Alexa ranking looks like it's for "inciclopedia.org" which is probably a redirect address, since the actual address is "inciclopedia.wikia.com". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  You keep referring to the sources like there's more than one, when infact there's only one legitimate one.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and DeleteSjakkalle offers a fairly strong defense of his close and it is not necessarily out of process, except that I think this site does clearly fail WP:WEB as noted in the original nomination with a dash of WP:RS concerns thrown in (noted in the DRV nom); so it would have been better for the admin to have closed based on policy, not !vote-counting. I am unmoved by the lazy endorsements of some of those below whose sanction is the usual stuff one expects when a close conforms to one's own views; but I include myself in the laziness category for not having consulted this discussion which I think provides sufficient grounds for retention and makes Sjakkalle's close reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, pretty clear consensus even if not for the best of reasons. Recommend merging with Uncyclopedia, which is a normal editorial action that can be done anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree, only Rataube & carl responded to my concerns, the rest were just votes. The discussion ended without the concerns of another reliable source being addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The closer's explanation seems impeccable and the challenge to it seems not to have any basis in process. DRV is not AFD². Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  So you want me to move this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2?--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Good summation of closure from the closer, given that a reliable source was found to meet the core verifiability policy and provide some notability, overturning the consensus of the discussion based on the possible failure of a guideline would not have been appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse per Davewild and Colonel Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse keep this is not AfD2. Since there was clear consensus to keep, if you insist on another AfD, i'd think it necessary to wait at least 3 or 4 months before starting one.DGG (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Nom comment If this is kept, I will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2, as the fact still stands it still fails WP:WEB despite the Keep votes which never seem to address the problem at hand.--Otterathome (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the recent nature of the previous AfD, I strongly suggest you wait a while to do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's very bad form to immediately re-nominate an article for deletion just because you disagree with the result. Give it at least a month and, if it still hasn't improved, then you can re-nominate. -- Kesh (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the closer gave clear rationales for keeping the article. The article meets verifiability and is closely on the verge of notability. If one legitimate source can be found, it means that there's high chance of finding more sources on this subject. Remember we need sources when there's something that need to be cited. The first source from indymedia is ok, since it supports the information that "it was founded on February 24, 2006 to serve as a continuation of Frikipedia, a parody site closed by SGAE". The site is mentioned on a TV show, it means that it must have certain notability to be referenced in pop culture. Also, SELFPUB is sometimes acceptable, for example we still use information on Nobelprize.org as sources for Nobel prizes related articles. After all, this is a rightly closed AFD. If you want to renominate the article for deletion, you should wait for 2 or 3 months because there's a consensus for keeping it and in the meantime maybe many users may add more sources to the article. @pple complain 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  If you actually read my sources evaluation, the indymedia source talks about frikipedia being closed down, and Inci isn't mentioned. A small mention in a TV shows doesn't count towards the notability of the article as it is as trivial as info can get. I was mentioned as the winner of a competition, does that contribute to my notability? There was no consensus, there was a vote.--Otterathome (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete Merge with Uncyclopedia until better sources are found The newspaper source is horrible[1]. Did you look at its main page [2]. This is a sensationalist newspaper that looks for curious stuff to cover. FFS, this is just low-quality yellow press that I doubt that has any reputation for fact checking. Looking at the Society section: "Condoms sell like hot bread this week(...) this time (people) is buying boxes of 12, tells Mirta Salazar, shopkeeper of the sucursal of Farmacias Ahumada of (street) Providencia with (street) Manuel Montt"[3], they only asked one pharmacy shopkeeper. Not only this source is awful but it asserts no notability of Inciclopedia at all. See, it only covers Inciclopedia because it had a fun page, not because they found it notable, the article only talks about a parody that is found in *one* page on the site. The page could have been hosted at any other wiki and it would have been covered in the exact same way. Also, they just interview the senator to show him the parody and ask him about it and, from context, they never ask him about a website called Inciclopedia or ask his opinion about it. If *this* is the better source they could find at eswiki and here, then the assesment that there were no sources on the article asserting notability is totally correct. In other words: Dios mio, pero que mierda de fuente es esta, hace falta valor, qué coño estaban pensando en eswiki. The eswiki votation was based only on the fact that the voters like the website and want the article preserved, and they make absolutely no assesment of sources at all. I just don't want to watch the video from TV Cuatro in case I find something worse than the newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that newspaper wouldn't do as a RS for negative information in a BLP, but this is not a bio article. DGG (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Closer's explanation was sound. Verifiable, reliable sources were presented and consensus is that they were enough to warrant keeping the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• The *real* problem is not that those sources are verifiable or reliable. The real problem is that those sources are not establishing enough notability to have its own article since they don't cover Inciclopedia itself. Some of them either cover frikipedia, or cover things that happen to have appeared on Inciclopedia, like the newspaper source I comment above. That's just enough to have a section at Frikipedia but not for its own article. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, no WP:RS available whatsoever. The delete arguments in the AfD, drowned out by the keeps, were the correct answer, not the original research from constantly varying Alexa results keep rationale. MrPrada (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Original poster's edits removing information from the page and adding a nonsensical 10,267,272 Alexa rank are not constructive and are based on badly fallacious logic. The name "inciclopedia.org" is a redirect to "inciclopedia.wikia.com"; I'm surprised it even appears on Alexa but its use to establish supposed "non-notability" for "inciclopedia.wikia.com" quite clearly fails WP:RS. --carlb (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  If you were actually bothered to read the edit summaries there was a legitimate reason for the removal of content. But no, you assume bad faith and vote solely on the fact of the person that nominated it. This is a review of the article and afd, not the user that has nominated it. Gotta love Uncy-pedians.--Otterathome (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  The nonsense claiming "the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web." is part of the supposed rationale for nominating this for deletion review. As such, this data being just plain wrong is relevant here - attempting to get an Alexa rank of a redirect instead of the destination site will never return meaningful data and I'm surprised it returns any numbers at all. The edits adding this nonsense to the article should be reverted and any nomination for deletion review that relies on this number as a factual justification or rationale should be speedily closed. --carlb (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  That's a very small part of a very large reason that it is not notable. The main reason is lack of third-party sources, read WP:WEB. The alexa rank will never be used to determine the notability of a website by itself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  You attempted to AfD the Inciclopedia page, claiming lack of sources. Rataube added some sources. The AfD was closed. No idea why you keep trying to re-open this, especially since your edits to Inciclopedia and Uncyclopedia-related topics on Wikipedia have been largely disruptive - in Inciclopedia's case deleting more than half the article text without any prior discussion. --carlb (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  What? You can't find any reliable sources? Then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.--Otterathome (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

LaTiendaUSA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latienda (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)