Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (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. I feel like I need to take a nap after reading all of this but I suppose I'll close it instead. The point that swayed me that keep is the proper conclusion was Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's when he pointed out that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." J04n(talk page) 23:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The result was keep, per what I've written at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Wikipediocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I completely realize that this article was recently taken to AfD. Heck, I realize that I voted Keep in that AfD. However, after comments by others about the sources, i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously. And what I have found does seem to indicate a violation of WP:SIGCOV here, where the source coverage is extremely trivial. While this was occasionally mentioned in the previous AfD, it does not appear to have been properly represented and that is why I am opening this new discussion. I will now go through the sources in the article to show what I mean.

This source is used to reference the Bicholim conflict hoax material, of which on Wikipediocracy it states, "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."" That is the entirety of the mention of Wikipediocracy within the article, clearly trivial.

This is a recent source about the Qworty incident. on Wikipediocracy, it states, "The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention, he writes, when members of Wikipediocracy, a site that details instances of Wikipedian fakery and bias, contacted him." Also a trivial mention, not even counting that it is referencing information from a different news article.

This article could actually be an issue of original research being used in the Wikipediocracy article. At the bottom of it, it states "H/T Wikipediocracy", with that being a link to a tweet by the Wikipediocracy Twitter that itself just links to two diff changes in a Wikipedia article. H/T generally means "Heard through" on Twitter, but that is certainly not enough information to back up the sentence currently in the Wikipediocracy article that it is attached to. This isn't even a real mention of the site at all.

This article is about somewhat recent discussions with Jimbo about Kazakh Wikipedia. Its comments on Wikipediocracy amount to, "Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy, an external forum whose members are often harshly critical of Wikimedia's management." This is, again, a trivial mention, and really, from what the rest of the article says, is a better reference to be used on Andreas than Wikipediocracy.

This source is about Gibraltarpedia. About Wikipediocracy, it states, "Kolbe wrote on Wikipediocracy, a site often critical of Wikimedia’s top brass." Again, this article has a fair amount to say on Andreas, but only half a sentence on Wikipediocracy. Even more trivial than trivial.

This source I could go on about its reliability, with it being The Register and about its author, Andrew Orlowski, but I have no need to. Because this article makes absolutely no mention of Wikipediocracy at all (other than in a screenshot of a Wikipedia conversation). Honestly, I have no idea why this source is in the article, other than for POV pushing.

This source, likewise, has no mention of Wikipediocracy and is merely being used to source the statement "co-founder of Wikipedia" for Larry Sanger, which doesn't really seem necessary, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This source, like the previous, confers no notability to Wikipediocracy, not even through a trivial mention.

Now i'll go back to the source that I skipped and saved for last here, because it is the one we have to focus on, that offers slightly more to the subject. However, it is about the recent Qworty incident and is the only source of any real length on Wikipediocracy, so we also have to bring up the question on whether this single event adds much by itself.

The article that I am referring to is this one. Now you can read it yourself and it certainly has a lot of references to Wikipediocracy and the information the writer was given by members there. However, it also says pretty much nothing about the site itself. Really, other than the mentions of their involvement in giving this Wikipedia information to the author, the article has nothing to say about the Wikipediocracy site itself.

And that's it, in a fair bit of length. If there was a single source that discussed the site in any length, even a paragraph, then this might be a different discussion. If there was anything about the site's foundings, its origins, even more about its members. But there's nothing. There are references to the site and that's all.

And as is often noted in AfD discussions, a bunch of trivial mentions don't add up to much. Trivial mentions are still trivial. And, in most cases, these are even worse than trivial. Usually what we call "trivial mentions" have at least two sentences or something on a subject, but these are, apparently, the most trivial among the trivial.

I see no real argument for notability here, once you actually take a look at the sources. SilverserenC 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should also note that this discussion is likely to bring a number of Wikipediocracy members here to vote Keep. Of my count in the past discussion, there were 4. SilverserenC 04:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're at...5 WO members voting Keep now? Just trying to keep track. SilverserenC 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the count of anti-Wikipediocracy drama hobbyists voting Delete??? Jeesh, talk about non-germane arguments in a notability debate... Carrite (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe Wikipediocracy (WO) currently has around 400 registered members. Of those, very few have linked to their WP accounts. Therefore, it is possible that everyone who votes here, whether for or against keeping this article, is a member of WO. It is impossible to know. What matters is the strength of their arguments, not an ad hominem perspective of their possible motivations for voting. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, it is impossible to know whether someone is an unspoken member or not. I was just referring to the ones that have admitted to the link. And it is not ad hominem to note that members of the site are more likely to want to defend the site. It's called WP:COI, you may have heard of it. However, arguments do matter and I look forward to any WO members commenting here to fully admit they are WO members in this discussion and then present their arguments for why the subject is notable. That's the only proper way to do it, after all. SilverserenC 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So by this argument, Wikipedia editors are more likely to defend the project and be hostile to a criticism site; there they also have a COI and shouldn't be !voting here. Indeed, the nom itself is COI editing since SSeren has been criticized there. Not a sound analysis! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect I may be one of the editors Silver seren speaks of when they talk of re-evaluating the sources, as I have been arguing against this article's appearance as a DYK due to questionable notability. In short, I agree completely with the analysis of the references, and despite searching, have found no indication of the existence of a single source that is independent of Wikipediocracy and offers significant coverage of the site. The time may well come when such coverage does exist, and that will be the time to consider creating this article (and potential DYK). However, due to the present lack of coverage, this article is actually a WP:COATRACK, where the real purpose is to promote criticism of Wikipedia itself. That article already exists, and lacking the above required non-trivial coverage of Wikipediocracy, there is no need for a duplicate. Resolute 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is not much on the site itself"? Sure, Salon does not go into detail on the site's history, but it certainly goes into a lot of detail about the site's activities in revealing the story. See the following:

The fact that Qworty’s very first action as an editor was to make it just a little bit more difficult for the casual reader to stumble upon discussions questioning whether Young was involved in editing his own page raised a red flag for the Wikipediocracy editors investigating Qworty. They were further intrigued to discover that two additional edits had then been made to the archived Talk page. These edits removed the reference to Young’s supposed admission that he had written his own page and deleted the conversation in which one editor had questioned the true identity of the other editor.

According to the Wikipediocracy researchers who have gone over every edit on Robert Clark Young’s page with a brace of exceedingly fine-toothed combs, much of the early work creating and editing the page — long before Qworty made the scene — was carried out by a series of disposable sock puppets: Wikipedia accounts that were created, made a few edits and then disappeared forever.

There are more mentions of that nature. Some mentions use the pronoun "they" so you may not notice by searching for the term and it is clear with The Daily Dot sources and the Salon source that there is enough here to write an article. As far as trivial coverage, WP:WEB defines it as "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." In other words, stating that a site is x would not be an inherent point for notability, but a reliable source stating that the site made an important revelation regarding y is another matter. The mention in the Bicholim hoax story was of that nature. Sources saying x member was prominently involved in y is of similar significance. As far as the article in The Register, it actually has a link to a blog post on WO in the line "A fuller account of the shenanigans can be found here, which explores the governance implications in depth."--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I said, the Salon article by itself doesn't give much. It's an okay source, but it's the only one of that nature. And I would suggest you look at the quotes I put above, which are indeed of the "site is x" nature. Not to mention that a link to WO isn't coverage, it's just a link. A link does not confer notability. SilverserenC 07:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."" of the "site is x" nature? In fact, none say just "site is x" but also point out the significant role WO or a member of WO had in a story. "Trivial" means "of very little importance or value" and that does not accurately describe this coverage.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you actually give an explanation based on policy? Saying that something is notable because they were involved in something doesn't mean much if there aren't the sources for it. And there appears to only be the one source that's worth anything in regards to it actually referencing Wikipediocracy. SilverserenC 09:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silver seren makes a good case that this is essentially a case of WP:COATRACKing - using trivial mentions to pad out the article. We wouldn't allow that for other articles, so I don't see why we should allow that for this one. Prioryman (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Prioryman has an observed history of making personal attacks on the subject of this AFD, and so his !vote should be evaluated accordingly. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the sleeper account is making this statement. So, which banned editor are you? SilverserenC 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipediocracy serves a useful function but that doesn't mean it has enduring notability. I think the last AfD votes were understandably fuelled by emotions after the Qworty incident. Most of the coverage is incidental and so it does not deserve its own article. When there is significant coverage this article can be resurrected and userfied to be worked on at that point. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say; I'm a member of the wikipediocracy forum (with few posts), if that sort of disclosure floats your boat. Merely being a member of the forum does not indicate that someone is in any wikipediocracy faction, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Agreed, but thank you anyways. SilverserenC 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could address the specific sourcing issues that Silver seren has raised? Prioryman (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not productive. The "issues" relate to minimizing the individual import of sources rather than properly evaluating the cumulative coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The Salon article is a major source. If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion. On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here. The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis. The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: " trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." That kind of coverage is not what we have here. The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summar[ies]," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable. If the coverage is not trivial coverage as defined in the notability guideline then it must be non-trivial coverage. Thus, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets WP:WEB. Obviously the question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Salon article is a major source about the Qworty incident. It is not a major source about Wikipediocracy. That's the point you guys are missing. It is a similar argument to arguing that a candidate in a local election is notable because his name was mentioned in an article about the election itself or that a minor league baseball player is notable because he got a mention for hitting a home run in a story about the game. The source justifies mentioning Wikipediocracy in the article on Robert Clark Young as it relates to his controversy, and in the criticism of Wikipedia article if a section on same exists, but to do anything more is WP:UNDUE as the source article is not about Wikipediocracy. Not a single independent citation in the article is about Wikipediocracy. And if there is an unused article that features significant coverage of the site, you guys have yet to reveal it. Resolute 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you mind explaining in detail your reference to WP:UNDUE, which is not a deletion criterion and seems to apply only to subjects whose notability is established? It doesn't seem relevant to deletion discussions in any way. Also, although the notability guideline we're dealing with is WP:WEB rather than WP:GNG, I don't suppose it could hurt to quote from that more general guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It doesn't matter whether the Salon article or any of the other sources are about Wikipediocracy or not. Your analogy to the baseball player is not apt. The discussion of Wikipediocracy in the sources is not trivial as trivial is defined in WP:WEB. Also, it wouldn't hurt to note here that your WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:COATRACK is misleading. Firstly COATRACK is an essay rather than a guideline. Secondly it is not a deletion criterion. In fact that (non-binding) essay doesn't even recommend deletion for such articles, but rather ordinary editing to solve perceived problems. Would you mind explaining how you think a non-binding essay that isn't even about deletion somehow supports your argument in a deletion discussion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • COATRACK is an essay, but it does accurately explain why the article is situated the way it is: There is so little that can actually be said about the site that the majority of the article is about other topics. And that is where I am coming from with UNDUE as well. Per the sources, literally all that can be said about Wikipediocracy itself is that it is a site dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia, and that some of its members contacted a Salon writer to expose an editor. That's it. And those very brief statements can easily fit within the two articles I noted above. The rest is puffery designed to create an illusion of notability. Even that very Salon article. If you can show me even a single independent article that discusses Wikipediocracy itself rather than offering a bare mention of what the site is, I will happily recant my delete !vote. But until that source exists, the keep rationales expressed thus far are nothing more than "passes GNG because I want it to". Resolute 19:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at this point the subject is notable, per Salon article at the very least. Also shouldn't this be DRV rather than a record-breaking 2nd nomination? Finally, the kind of well-poisoning that Silver Seren is engaging in is very unseemly.Volunteer Marek 12:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRVs are meant to be used if there was something wrong with how the previous AfD was closed. I am not saying there was. New AfDs are meant to be opened if they are discussing an aspect for deletion that wasn't considered in a previous AfD. This AfD does that. That's why I opened a new AfD rather than a DRV. SilverserenC 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I opened a new AfD rather than a DRV - less than, what, two days after the previous one was closed? And no AfD discussion can cover ALL possible aspect - what exactly is this new aspect that you refer to? That i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously? Well, that's on you, you should've looked closer first time. But even if your vote in the first AfD had been "delete", that AfD would've still been (correctly, as you note yourself) closed as "keep". And WP:SIGCOV was addressed at the first AfD (by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Keifer among others) so that's definitely not a "an aspect for deletion that wasn't considered in a previous AfD". This nom is just WP:POINTy.Volunteer Marek 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four days, actually. And the fact that the sources weren't even really looked at in the previous AfD. Everyone just assumed that they had appropriate coverage, until I looked into them and found that it was all smoke and mirrors. SilverserenC 15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, four days. Four days is still a ridiculously short amount of time to start another AfD. And when you say "sources weren't even really looked at in the previous AfD" what you mean is that YOU might not have really looked at the sources. But that's your fault. You can't assume that just because you were sloppy and lazy in your previous vote, others were too. And like I said, even if you had voted "delete" last time, it would've still been closed as snow keep. It's not all about Silver seren here.Volunteer Marek 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone just assumed? Look at the comment just after the first !vote "The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles..." My views remain as they were then.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Notwithstanding the thorough source analysis in the nom, the Salon article pushes it slightly over the line of notability in my view. - MrX 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice straw man. I never said that a single source gives it notability. Other sources have been cited, and while some editors dismiss them all as trivial, that does not mean that they add up to nothing. - MrX 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The site is increasingly being covered by the mainstream media, becoming a source of investigative journalism efforts on the always-popular subject of Wikipedia. Even if it is just barely-notable and sourced only barely-sufficiently now, it is very likely to only increase in notability and sourcing over the next three to six months. No malice to trying an AFD in six months' time, if no additional sources have been put forward on the article. Noting that no similar AFD has been currently leveled against Wikipedia Review, I have to wonder if the current discussion here was motivated by a revenge-like agenda, rather than an earnest assessment of source validity on articles related to Wikipedia criticism sites. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ADHOM in that order. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An account with less than 20 edits to its name and that has been inactive since 2011. Hello. SilverserenC 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Account also notices your frequent badgering of every "Keep" opinion. Some of us are here to build a better encyclopedia. Not sure what you're here for. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Seren didn't badger me yet. I'm feeling a little neglected.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Interesting to see that several keep votes are once again violating WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON, and "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." hasn't been met - there is not significant coverage of Wikipediocracy itself anywhere. Even the Salon source is mostly about Wikipedia's failings, and not about Wikipediocracy's "success" - lacking in any real substance for Wikipediocracy, and any notability it gives to WC actually fails WP:INHERIT, based on the fact that Andreas Kolbe is a WC editor, and has name dropped it wherever they can. He mentions a thread there, he mentions how they approached him and helped him, and that's pretty much it. It could easily just be an advert for the "good" they do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes notability. The source analysis above is unconvincing. I look forward to the 2-day break after this AFD closes before someone else takes a punt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this has already passed through AFD once, the burden is not on myself to provide an argument as to why it is notable. That has already been done at the article and the previous AFD. The burden is on you as the filer of the new AFD to convince me (and others) why our opinion should change since the last AFD. And I remain unconvinced by your lacklustre arguments. Now kindly stop badgering everyone who does not vote to your satisfaction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to say, I was at first only weakly supportive of keeping this article, but after looking a bit more I found this article in The Daily Dot. Although there is only one explicit mention of WO, the whole story is about the WMF responding to allegations made in a blog post on WO so that is highly significant. There are some other examples of links to WO within a story such as this one, with this one being more significant. With Salon and Talking Writing, that is more than enough for me to say it meets WP:WEB.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that any news article that links to a blog or other website gives notability to that website? We really need to rewrite WEB then, because it clearly doesn't explain that properly. SilverserenC 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a source says "x posted y on z" then proceeds to quote what x posted on z, that is significant even if the name of z is not uttered in the article itself, but a link to z is provided. That said, the first article I mentioned that does utter the name of z is the most significant one.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per alf laylah wa laylah and The Devil's Advocate. One instance of substantial coverage in a RS, plus numerous non-trivial instances in other RS is sufficient to demonstrate notability. This is AFD, not the carnival game of "pitch til you win." "Stare decisis" applies. The matter has been decided in the immediate past, and nothing substantial has happened since. If the previous AFD was defective in its form or in its closing, the matter should be taken to DRV. Also, arguing repetitiously with each editor who posts a different opinion is inappropriate and disruptive. Edison (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can feel free to argue with anyone you want on this page, that's the point of the discussion, after all. Also, can you please explain how the single sentence or less references in the articles count as "non-trivial"? SilverserenC 17:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • alf laylah wa laylah explained how the coverage is nontrivial above. That's why I cited Alf's arguments. A discussion is not improved by you repeating the same arguments after every !=vote you disagree with, although I understand it can be frustrating to see other editors not agree with your own views. You are unlikely to convince them to change their position, or to impress the closing admin with the correctness of your opinion, by repeating yourself over and over. Edison (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Journalists get pitched story-ideas every day, and many stories result from such pitches---only some of which are acknowledged. A reputable journal with editors supervising reputable journalists is a reliable source---especially since the story has had only updates and no retractions. (Too bad WP doesn't have the integrity of reliable newspapers and have a retraction section, preferably linked on the front page.) If the journalist writes in Wolfean style, the story may be more engaging: Such new journalism does not change the reliability of the source. The story is an independent source, which describes the author's independent fact checking, presumably vetted by an editor. (C.f., Resnikoff, Paul ("paul") (13 October 2011). "King Crimson can't get their music off of Grooveshark, so they cc'd Digital Music News." Digital Music News. Retrieved 30 May 2011.). As Volunteer Marek noted, I already addressed the reliability of the main journal at the earlier AfD, contrary to many claims here. Let's chalk this up as an "off day" for the nominator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read your comment multiple times and still don't understand its relevance to what I said above. The only source's reliability that I even mentioned was The Register and that was off-hand, since that didn't have any coverage of WO anyways. SilverserenC 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I not allowed to respond to people in this discussion? That is the point of deletion discussions, is it not? You can feel free to respond to anyone on here as well. And thank you for acknowledging your relationship to WO, you are only the second person to do so. Now, can you please explain why these sentence long or less trivial mentions meet the GNG? SilverserenC 18:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a line where it comes across as badgering, though. IIRC, somewhere in the WP:* acronym soup there is a "nominator does not need to respond to each and every opposition argument" essay, but the title escapes me at the moment. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might be looking for WP:BLUDGEON --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the gentleman and the scholar. That was exactly the page I had in mind, thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important comment. If this is deleted, it should be moved to Wikipedia:Wikipediocracy to help explain to Wikipedia editors what Wikipediocracy is, with a cross namespace redirect. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to appear be censoring groups that point out its many problems, which is what this could be interpreted as. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost said speedy keep, but I don't because I don't question the good faith intent of the nomination. Nevertheless, we just went through this, and the consensus was overwhelming. In my view, respect for the process, and for the opinions of the many editors who contributed there, strongly weigh in favor of waiting a while before revisiting this. And I have not changed my mind that the sources push the subject over the notability line, as explicated by alf and TheDevilsAdvocate, among others. NB: I have no connection whatsoever to Wikipediocracy, have so much as looked at it fewer than a half-dozen times. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's easily enough here for any other article with this sourcing to be kept. And that's from someone who repeatedly bangs their head on the table at some of the Keeps round here. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - It is out of process and potentially disruptive to attempt to overturn a close by immediately relisting a Keep close at AfD. The correct process is to seek overturn of the decision at Deletion Review. Trout for the nominator. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is meant to be if you felt there was something out of process about the close or the closer's argument. Things are meant to be taken to AfD again if there is a different avenue of discussion that is brought up. That is why I took it to AfD rather than DRV. SilverserenC 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, doing this four days after closure is disruptive, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what I said last time, and per 'what the fuck is a Wikipediocracy member anyway?' I'm registered there - you have to be to read some of the forum - but I certainly don't align myself with some of the self-indulgent egoist regulars who frequent the place. The idea that forum members will necessarily vote in unison is simply ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you repeat what you said last time, in regards to the sources? As for "The idea that forum members will necessarily vote in unison is simply ridiculous". WO members do, always. I have yet to see an exception to that. SilverserenC 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know who is and who isn't a Wikipediocracy forum member? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's changed since the last few days is that some editors appear to be more willing to examine the sources more closely than during the original AfD. However, I would also caution that it's a fool's game trying to note which editors contributing to this page are also members of the site's forum. It costs nothing to assume good faith on both sides. This isn't a vote, and if the closing admin is contentious in his or her job then it shouldn't matter what contributors to this page declare. Anything else just bogs the page down in irrelevancies. As for the argument, I looked at this a few days ago after another editor recommended I visit the site. The bulk of what I found (and posted elsewhere) follows: I thought the sourcing somewhat weak at that point, so conducted a little exercise that involved stripping out any links and references that wouldn't ordinarily be used to help establish notability. Some were primary sources or links to the site itself, others didn't mention it at all, and the rest amounted to nothing more than "hat tips" or trivial mentions in articles that were almost wholly about other subjects. That's not to say that they wouldn't be included in the article in order to report on the site's activities and provide context, just that on their own they shouldn't be used to give the appearance that the site has been the subject of significant coverage, as the notability guideline requires. As it stands, only the Salon.com article could be said to approach this standard, and even then only weakly. One weak source that discusses the site in the context of one incident isn't enough for me. Steve T • C 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep This shouldn't have been opened 4 days after the last one.--Rockfang (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally closed [edit conflict with Rockfang]. You should have challenged a "keep" by taking this to WP:DRV, not by immediately opening a new AFD. I'm going to open a DRV and copy your nomination statement from here to there. DRV sometimes returns a decision of "open a new AFD"; if they do that, we can simply unclose this one. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict; written before closure) Keep. First of all, I question the value of renominating this or any article for deletion just four days after a prior AFD closed as Keep, in the absence of a supervening BLP issue or the like. In any event, Wikipediocracy has become sufficiently notable to warrant an article here based on some of the sources that have been cited. At this point, the site is at least as notable as its now-moribund predecessor Wikipedia Review, which has enjoyed (?) an article for several years. And although we don't rely on future events as the basis for notability, the notability of Wikipediocracy is almost sure to continue to increase: Wikipedia and Wikimedia, for all of their positive attributes that keep us contributing, will continue to have faults and foibles that Wikipediocracy will seek to expose and publicize, sometimes fairly and sometimes otherwise. If we delete this now, we'll be having an agonizing debate again about whether enough has changed to warrant inclusion some three or six months from now; let's not do that to ourselves. For what it's worth, I do not believe this article should be mainpaged—in general, including articles that the general public would perceive as navel-gazing on the main page should be avoided—but that is a different question from whether the article should exist at all. Finally, I hope that the community will devote only a reasonably proportionate amount of time to this entire discussion, recognizing that while this AFD may matter very much to our "inside baseball" crowd, the short-term fate of this article is of limited importance in the grander scheme of wikithings. In the past few days, a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) have looked back at the damage done by Qworty and asked "why wasn't this problem identified much sooner?" Part of the answer is that sometimes we collectively focus too much of the community's most precious resource, which is our contributors' time and attention, not on improving our articles and making sure that we treat our fellow editors and our article subjects fairly, but on digressions like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting

[edit]

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz. First you lecture participants an Deletion Review on how the real issue was Speedy close by a non-administrator and how speedying controversial subjects is generally a bad idea — as part of a speedy and even more highly controversial close. Well, that's sort of entertaining. Then you cite an opinion essay as having guiding value at AfD, which is flat wrong. Forgive me if I dismiss your opinion about whether or not there is validity to Procedural Keep opinions here in the wake your mishanding of the job at DRV and here. BTW, the actual governing guideline, cited by Unscintillating above, reads in part "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." So, if you are objecting to the closure of the first AFD, why did you reopen the second? Ah, details, details. This 2nd AfD is a clusterfuck from start to finish, frankly (thanks, nominator!), and the botched speedy at DRV did nothing whatsoever to either speed the process or to calm troubled waters. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sourcing for an article, and on almost any other subject it would be a very clear keep. There's a tendency here is try not to have articles on something we don't like that directly affects us. Just what most PR firms try to do for their clients, pretend what we do not like isn't really there, or isn't really important.(I am not commenting on anyone's individual motive, but a general bias affecting us collectively. Where we intrinsically can't be objective, we need to be very careful about what we do. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it totally differently - if this site criticized Facebook, Microsoft, or whoever, then it would be deleted easily, as people would (generally) leave feelings aside, and actually analyse the sources present. I'm not going to reiterate my commentary on the sources, any more than to say they're pretty much junk. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if it's possible to have a fair, objective discussion about this site, as the very fact that the site concerns itself with Wikipedia means that everybody here has a conflict of interest with regard to it, either in favor of or against it depending on where they stand in Wikipolitical issues, but not dispassionate as they might be regarding an unrelated site. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - I support the previous closure and believe that renomination after four days by an avowed enemy of the subject is disruptive. The fact that this renomination was NOT driven by the fact that a non-administrator made a snow closure (the rationale for the dubious speedy overturn at DRV) is explicitly stated above by the nominator. He says, "DRV is meant to be if you felt there was something out of process about the close or the closer's argument. Things are meant to be taken to AfD again if there is a different avenue of discussion that is brought up. That is why I took it to AfD rather than DRV." That is an admission of a (disruptive) second nomination after 4 days. Whether or not you like or hate the subject is irrelevant. Whether or not you think the subject just passes GNG or just fails GNG at this time is irrelevant. The first speedy closure was less dubious than than the speedy closure at DRV and we should not be in the business of supporting bad faith renominations after just four days. This is an AfD Pandora's box that must be kept sealed, a horrible precedent. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point you are trying to make entirely eludes me. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has just become a big jumbled mess now. Everybody is just pointing fingers and blaming eachother for things and I'm getting lost in this entire issue. How about we just start over in about 6 months, because right now I don't think anybody could decide if this article should be kept or not with all the mess that has happened after one error after another that has pretty much created a domino effect. JayJayWhat did I do? 17:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Discussion and non-trivial contributions to articles from journalistically reliable sources (Salon). That's what notability boils down to. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no compelling policy argument against the article. Deletion will appear petty and absurd; whether or not this is true, people will assume that the Qworty incident has reoccurred yet again, with editors justifying deletion of pages they dislike on grounds that the general public will find technical at best and incomprehensible at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: I find Newyorkbrad's argument compelling, except I disagree about "frontpaging", there should be no reason to prevent a future feature from appearing on the main page. Optimom (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 3) Comment regarding four previous closures  There is a long list of procedural errors.  The latest closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy is not a closing at all—Snottywong's deletion tool is reading the result as a "keep".  Another problem is that the DRV closer has not performed the normal step in a closing of marking the talk page of the article.  The DRV itself was closed early after only two days, without any reason being given.  This current and 2nd AfD was not the subject of the DRV.  There was no editor who objected to the NAC, so bringing the point into evidence as a closer is not what we do, the editor should enter a !vote.  The DRV closing somehow concludes that a routine NAC was "foolish" and not just "foolish" but "incredibly foolish".  This is the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.  Compare with this comment barely a week old that the DRV closer believes, "we...have a robust mechanism for avoiding abusive nominations -& and a zero tolerance of personal attacks."  The DRV closer also claims that this is a "controversial article", which is not a policy/guideline based concept, as the concept in the WP:NACD guideline is "controversial decision".  Admins can overturn NAC closures after review, but there is a concern here that the DRV closer is improperly discouraging non-admin closures.  A major error was opening the 2nd AfD, which had been procedurally closed.  The closer affirms in the comment at the top of the 1st AfD that the 1st AfD should be the one restored.  Without speculating why, opening instead the 2nd AfD has the effect of taking down 13 keep !votes (14 minus one for Silverseren) and one delete !vote from the first discussion, taking down the four (including Nyttend) procedural close !votes from the 2nd AfD, and instead activating 14 keep !votes, seven delete !votes, and the abusive nomination for the 2nd AfD.  This is exactly what we don't want to happen at AfD, we need administrators to stop abusive nominations before they can start, and ensure that nominators are not ignoring their responsibilities with WP:BEFORE.  Every editor who posts to AfD is advised that WP:BEFORE is a guideline.  Nyttend IMO made two mistakes, one, the close should not have been listed as "keep", and two, starting a procedural DRV was WP:POINT.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural closure, Overturn DRV closure, restore 1st AfD  This is not a high priority AfD topic such as a BLP that might justify a new review in less than six months after a previous keep result.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is procedurally correct. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, for what it's worth, I think Wikipediocracy is an excellent website that has done much to improve Wikipedia. However, I have to agree with Silverseren's nomination statement above, that under our policies it is not yet notable. It's had a lot of trivial mentions, but has yet to be the subject of significant coverage from anywhere; even the recent Salon article isn't really about it. Ultimately, therefore, it fails WP:WEB. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: it looks like there are a number of "procedural keep"s that aren't really operative anymore, I suggest those editors strike those and re-vote just on the merits of the article (and for those who don't, the person closing should probably discount those for purposes of headcount). Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this was any other website the coverage would be regarded as not contributing to notability and it would be deleted for not meeting WP:WEBCRIT. It has not been "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". If you want to keep it for other reasons that's fine, but let's not pretend it meets our usual criteria, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have you not !voted to delete it? 28bytes (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG (no need for me to repeat 28bytes, DGG, NYB, DB et al...). Whilst I appreciate that the nominator may feel the need to compensate for his original "keep" vote for some reason, the result is in little doubt, and I'm not entirely clear why we are indulging this. Dan T makes a good point - we need to develop some composure and detachment when discussing articles like this, which concern entities maybe critical of the encyclopedia. Not entirely clear why this 2nd out of process AFD was reopened, when it appears to be the NAC snow close of the 1st AFD which is being called into question, either. Still, we need our drama fill, so here we are. Begoon talk 04:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 28bytes. smtchahaltalk 09:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a site written by people who're butthurt about Wikipedia, for people who're butthurt about Wikipedia. Its editorials are raw and throbbing with all the butthurt. OMG Wikipedia is unreliable! OMG some users add defamatory content! OMG some of the editors are sexist or weird and scary in real life! OMG people upload offensive pictures to the internet! Quick, let's all get together in a little circlejerk where we can agree with each other about how much it sucks! Because talking to other people who'll confirm what we think is going to help the butthurt to heal!

    Outside the tiny world of Wikipedians, nobody cares about Wikipediocracy. We should leave its article there, not because it's "notable" (by any rational definition it's of no significance or importance whatsoever, although it's approximately one million times more notable than, say, sexuality in Star Trek), but because we mean it about not being censored, and articles like this, or Criticism of Wikipedia (bland though that is), should prove it.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If what you say were true, media outlets like Salon and the Daily Dot would be ignoring Wikipediocracy, wouldn't they? They don't because real people are being hurt and threatened by WP's lack of adequate administration. So, until WP gets its house in order, WO will be listened to by journalists. Anyway, please don't construe this comment as giving an opinion on whether WO meets WP's notability requirements, because I'm not commenting on that. Cla68 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they're not. Although Wikipedia's administration definitely has its problems, it's not significantly worse than other privately-run websites, where it's perfectly normal to get equally random and arbitrary decisions, in-crowds, favourites etc.

    You don't get Wikipediocracy-style sites about blogs or webforums where people post whatever they like. What real people are mainly being hurt and threatened by is (1) Google's decision to give Wikipedia content such prominence, and (2) the unaccountable tendency of people who read Wikipedia to believe what they read. The answer to that is to move the disclaimer link on every page to the top, and put it in bright red, bold font, that flashes.—S Marshall T/C 11:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get Wikipediocracy-style sites about blogs or webforums where people post whatever they like. Perhaps that is becuase those forums and blogs don't purport to be an encyclopaedia, and don't pretend to be as accurate as Britannica, and don't solicit tax free donations. John lilburne (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed that Wikipedia was "as accurate as Britannica" (not that that's a high bar, but Wikipedia isn't over it unless you select your comparator articles with great care). The fact that a few bizarre weirdoes have made that claim does not mean that all or even most Wikipedians believe it. US tax law is about as relevant to me as the law in Waziristan, so I don't know anything about it, but I know of more than a few forums and blogs that solicit donations and to which my personal donations are (or would be) tax free.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that you did. But the claims are made that it is an encyclopaedia, and that its accuracy matches that of Britannica. John lilburne (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. That term is absolutely accurate; "encyclopaedia" is a descriptive label, not an award for accuracy or reliability. The claim that its accuracy matches that of Britannica depends on the specific article chosen. Generally, if it's a subject of interest to American males aged 15-35 that has high participation, the accuracy isn't too bad; for example, Wikipedia's articles on anything involving the American army in the Second World War are usually rather decent. There are of course horrors of bias and inaccuracy, marketing spam, libel and just genuine misunderstandings permeating Wikipedia, not least of which are the lies that everyone believes---the theories tomorrow's scientists will refute---and the labour of fixing them all is insurmountable. The answer is to educate the reader about Wikipedia's failings by making the disclaimers we already have more prominent. In fact, the lesson of Wikipedia is the same as the lesson of the whole internet in the early twenty-first century: caveat lector.—S Marshall T/C 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
would "potential sock" be better phrasing? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 12:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't sock and I take offense at the intimation. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Based on the fact that an article can be deemed to be notable by numerous people here on this project when it only receives trivial mentions, I have an article which was based upon numerous full length articles that needs undeleting. Russavia (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could try WP:REFUND if it's uncontroversial, or maybe WP:DRV if it was deleted via AFD. Hope that helps. Begoon talk 16:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he is talking about the article I think he is talking about then he can't request undeletion, because it would be a violation of his topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok... sorry - just trying to help find the right venue, and it looks like I ballsed it up. Mea culpa. Begoon talk 16:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, almost forgot the audience I was dealing with here. Subject is notable, per the comments above (while also agreeing with the no-censorship stuff). Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per several editors more eloquent than I (Newyorkbrad, DGG, Alison, etc...). Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage in The Daily Dot and Salon.com is clearly more than trivial, and in total is significant. The Daily Dot describes the site as "known for digging up dirt". Surely "known for" is a synonym of "notable". This is not a web listing describing the site, it is a journalist. Other articles there detail some of the activities of the web site in far more detail than the line drawn for trivial coverage in WP:WEB. Kevin (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kelp. Enough seaweed has gathered in the area that a couple big masses have washed ashore. The sand-flies are circling. It's time to rake it up and put it in an article.→StaniStani  06:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depuff It marginally neets notability, but its content is pretty bad, with much material which is not notable or is simply puff filling out this article/essay. Collect (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I repeated the analysis done by the nominator, with the same result. No reliable independent sources discuss the subject in any depth.
Source Type Title/Link
Alexa Internet Website Stats wikipediocracy.com info
Wikipediocracy Self Wikipediocracy
The Daily Dot Passing mention Wikipedia says its staffers are not vandalizing Wikipedia
The Daily Dot Passing mention After a half-decade, massive Wikipedia hoax finally exposed
Talking Writing Passing mention What Should We Do About Wikipedia?
Salon.com Qworty story Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia
The Daily Dot Passing mention The Daily Dot - Wikipedia pot article loses bongs, gets OK'd in Russia
Twitter Self / blog Twitter / Wikipedia_Forum". Twitter
The Daily Dot Passing mention The Daily Dot - Wikipedia's odd relationship with the Kazakh dictatorship
Net Prophet No mention Critics question neutrality of Kazakh Wikipedia
Daily Dot Passing mention Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales breaks silence on resurgence of influence-peddling scandal
The Register No mention Wales: Let's ban Gibraltar-crazy Wikipedians for 5 years
Wikipediocracy Self Busy day at the Wikimedia Foundation office?
Wikipediocracy Self Announcing a new Wikipedia criticism site: Wikipediocracy
Wikipediocracy Self Cover-up begins in Wikipedia's Gibraltar scandal
The typical "Passing mention" is something like: "The accusations surfaced Monday on Wikipediocracy, a site known for digging up dirt on Wikipedia's top brass". The one story that mentions Wikipediocracy more than once is the Salon.com story about the Qworty sockpuppet allegations, which draws heavily on Wikipediocracy. But it does not discuss the website in any more depth than the other "passing mention" sources. "a group of Wikipedia editors affiliated with the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy approached me ... With the help of Wikipediocracy, I discovered a real-world story here ... raised a red flag for the Wikipediocracy editors investigating Qworty." So what we know from reliable independent sources is:
  • The website exists
  • It digs up dirt on Wikipedia
  • Sometimes other sites mirror the dirt
That is the total available information. Who owns the site? What is its business model? How much money does it make? Is it affiliated with The Daily Dot? The sources are silent. Not enough for an article, not enough to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a dishonest summary. Reliable sources credit its investigations for raising an issue, which is then addressed by the RS and WMF. Muck-raking and then being credited by RSes is not "a passing mention". Bernstein and Woodward had similar passing mentions in later coverage of Watergate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A book can be cited by other books without making the book, author or publisher notable. If all that were known about Bernstein and Woodward is that their names were on the Washington Post stories, cited by other sources, they would not be notable. They are notable because a lot has been said about them. Nobody has bothered to say anything significant about the Wikipediocracy website. The only interest is in the stories. The site itself is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation You all realize by making such loud and visible arguments you've caused 3 things to happen. Feeding the Wikipedia disruption engine by watching us argue about core policies and if it makes sense for us to even have this article. Taking time away from improving the collected knowledge that we've amassed. Left us open to annother fit of pique from XKCD (See also Malamanteau). I personally lean on the side of "Truncate, Merge, and Redirect", but I'm a realist in that I don't think we're going to see any real change until we agree to drain the partisanship from the swamp. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not worry too much about that. This is a fairly obscure and arcane debate, of purely internal interest. The vast majority of people live in happy ignorance of the way that Wikipedia works. This debate is not going to be the top story on CNN. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How fitting. Your attitude is essentially similar that of a 16th century nobleman's view of bathing; he would only clean the visible body parts...neck, arms,face, etc...and just perfume/scent up the hidden areas. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. Hasteur seems concerned that this debate will cause significant external or internal disruption. I doubt that it will have much visible impact. Few editors and very few members of the general public are paying attention. But I am in favor of discussions like this. A decision based on policy rather than emotion would be valuable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is badly written. The content had very little relations to the website itself as much as huge relations to works by the website. Why not just.... slim the article back to the stub... and then make bibliographies of notable works by the website? Or rewrite the whole article by making interviews with webmasters and publishing them? It might risk "conflict of interest", but... what else can we do? --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliable sources have given this obscure website more than passing mention, so we know next to nothing about it. None of the articles on the website are notable either, since none have attracted reviews or other commentary. The answer is simple: not notable = delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? Salon is one of the top journals in the US today. The Andrew Leonard series on Qworty has attracted all sorts of secondary coverage. And, in light of that series, deleting Wikipediocracy will look like petty revenge of precisely the sort that Qworty took on his critics and rivals. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Salon article doesn't give any notability, as it is about an editor there who completed the exposee, and whom promptly proceeded to name-drop it everywhere they could. There's nothing substantial about Wikipediocracy itself anywhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not kidding at all. The Salon article says that Wikipediocracy is a Wikipedia criticism site. That is all. It does not give the most basic information about ownership, content, target audience or business model. None of the other sources give any more information either. If the website were criticizing General Motors rather than Wikipedia, and had only this minimal level of converge, it would have been deleted out of hand. The site is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The sources are weak, but the Salon article, while not in-depth about Wikipediocracy, meets the requirements of WP:N (as one source of "multiple" with non-trivial coverage) to my mind. The other sources, put together, are enough to meet WP:N. It ain't pretty, but it's just over the bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sources mention in passing that Wikipediocracy is a site that criticizes Wikipedia. That is all. Where is the non-trivial coverage? Do any of the sources discuss the site in any way, or are we building an article on just that one trivial item of information? The fact that this website apparently involves Wikipedia editors and discusses Wikipedia is not a reason why we should ignore our normal principles and policies. The reverse should be true. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources do not discuss articles, only posts. If you fill out this form on Wikipediocracy you can start posting your own views about Wikipedia. Feel free. A reporter for The Daily Dot may pick up on your assertions. That does not count as in-depth coverage of the website. It is like basing an article on Twitter only on tweets. The sources say nothing at all about the website ownership, target audience or business model: the basic facts are missing. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here they are, first the Daily Dot ones, then the Salon one and last the Talking Writing recap of the Salon article
  • Staffers are not vandalizing: "The accusations surfaced Monday on Wikipediocracy"
  • Hoax exposed: "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect"
  • Pot article: "H/T Wikipediocracy" (H/T = Hat Tip = thanks)
  • Kazakh dictatorship: "Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy"
  • Gibraltar: "Wikipedia community member, Andreas Kolbe, ... wrote on Wikipediocracy"
  • Salon article: "two weeks after my story was published, a group of Wikipedia editors affiliated with the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy approached me..."
  • Talking writing: (Recap of Salon article): "The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention ... when members of Wikipediocracy ... contacted him."
Apart from the "group of Wikipedia editors" approaching Leonard, these certainly sound like quotes from posts by forum members. The sources do not mention any articles, directly or indirectly. There is nothing like "in an article published by...". The sources are not interested in the website and do not discuss it. They are only concerned with the comments posted on the website. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But are they posts by forum members, and how did those posts come to the attention of the sources? Anyway up above you say that "[...]Bernstein and Woodward is that their names were on the Washington Post stories" then they would not be notable. Here you say in effect that the Washington Post would not be notable except for its authors. John lilburne (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A subject is notable only if it is the subject of significant discussion, whether it is a reporter, a newspaper or a website. A casual mention or even a citation does not confer notability. Say J. Smith wrote a 1963 monograph on "Modern clay blending equipment", published in the first (and last) issue of Illinois Machine World. This monograph is cited in a book about pottery to support some facts, properly attributed. That does not make J. Smith notable, or the article, or the publication. Someone has to have written about J. Smith himself, reviewed the article or discussed the publication. In this case, there is no such discussion. All the sources say, in passing, is that the website publishes posts critical of Wikipedia. We know nothing else about it: ownership, audience, business model etc. are not covered anywhere. There is no significant discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it appears that it is like "Rick's Café Américain" where tech journalists and researchers pop in for a whiskey, a cinnamon bun, and an update on the latest shenanigans wikipedia. John lilburne (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source said, "it is like "Rick's Café Américain" where tech journalists and researchers pop in for a whiskey, a cinnamon bun, and an update on the latest shenanigans wikipedia", that might actually be considered in-depth coverage. But none of the sources discuss the website in anything close to that much detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read those sources very closely. Read them. All of them. Then get back to me.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@The Devil's Advocate: I have read those sources very closely. All of them. Still no trace of in-depth coverage of the website. Don't keep us all in suspense. Which source says anything significant about the website? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read most and am !voting to (weakly) keep. That said, as someone leaning to the inclusionist side, I'm a bit surprised by the number of people who seem to think this easily meets WP:N. It's really a close call. One fairly good source, lots of really weak ones where the coverage is probably "trivial" in each. I'm happy to take the sum of all that and call those a reasonable source between them all. But we have to use non-independent (reliable) sources for most of the material in the article. I'm comfortable with that--I'm just a bit surprised others are. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you hadn't realised that special exemptions from the rules apply to Wikipediocracy, apparently. Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's gotten enough play from Salon and the Reg and Daily Dot. It should be very stubby. Both the builders and destroyers are overplaying their hands.TCO (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(update) Meh. The more I think about it, the article is pretty weak sauce. There are no real profiles on the site, just mentions of a few blog posts in the context of kerfuffles themselves. If it was a BLP or a corporation, I doubt it would live. That said, some of the "defender of the Wiki" types are a bit IDONTLIKETHAT. Wouldn't really kill me if it went bye-bye (or if it lives either). To NYB's point, so when it becomes notable can get an article then. And worrying about looking fair versus worrying about being fair is...icky.  ;-)TCO (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Could srsly move it to Wikipedia space though. Not even a troll (boy who cried wolf).TCO (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the independent sources? I think it would be _really_ stubby. If you count things taken directly from Wikipediocracy (primary sources), sure there is plenty. And using primary sources is fine. But I agree with TCO--both sides are making way too broad of claims. This is a close call and were it most any other topic, I'd expect a no consensus outcome with this level of sourcing. A corporation would likely be deleted with just this level of sourcing in my experience. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is better when it treats its criticism (including external criticism) fairly. The energy expended on trying to delete the page would be better spent improving it. The sourcing is fine, the subject is notable, but the prose in the article needs cleaning up. (I could imagine that if the page is deleted that there will be an even bigger hue and cry from external wiki critics that would cause the site to become even more notable.) Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is better when it follows its own principles and policies, even with articles about Wikipedia. If this chat forum covered any other subject, it would not have a snowball's hope. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. Salon is a notable enough publication. Furthermore, I am of the general opinion that anything that might be perceived at all as silencing criticism or censoring it should be avoided. Ergo I disagree with the argument that we should uniformly follow policies and procedures in this instance. I think even the strongest policy is at best a general guideline and that it must be applied situationally. I cannot say I am very comfortable with doing anything that might be perceived, by anyone, as censorship. Even if the truth is plainly evident, that it is in fact actually uniform application of the rules and not censorship that is occurring, and I am not entirely convinced such is plainly evident here. I am an admitted delusionist with some inclusionist tendencies however. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The web gives plenty of scope for external comment and criticism, and Wikipedia is very open to internal criticism. The vigor of discussion in this thread is evidence. Deleting the article is nothing to do with censorship. We are not deleting the website or making it any less accessible. Deleting the article is to do with intellectual honesty. Do we apply the same standards to articles that relate to Wikipedia as to articles about others? When we show willingness to bend our rules in cases that concern us directly, that weakens the value of all the contributions about other subjects that so many editors have made. If we are not neutral and objective here, what about other cases? I rarely vote "delete" and have rescued several articles on obscure subjects, but this one is beyond rescue. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subject doesn't fulfill the notability criteria in any substantive way. And frankly, having an encyclopedia article on Wikipediocracy is the kind of self-absorbed navel-gazing that get us criticized... by Wikipediocracy. But I enjoy irony as much as anyone, so call this a weak keep. MastCell Talk 22:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Damn, I hate voting that way, because I dislike Wikipediocracy and voting to delete it makes my vote look partisan. I can't help that, but I'm also surprised to vote to delete, because my first impulse was "Of course it's notable! I read it all the time!". But here's the process I went through:
    • Militating for DELETE is that, to be honest, it really doesn't meet the GNG. I like to see something, somewhere, about an entity -- an interview with the founder, article mainly about the entity, that sort of thing, even if its short and in an obscure venue. We don't even have that. And Jeez those are some pretty poor references in there -- Alexa, Twitter, Wikipediocracy itself, and if you take those out the refs are kind of thin.
    • But I'd have voted KEEP anyway, because I'm sort of an inclusionist, and the Wikipedia is not paper, and it's kind of borderline -- it's not like there's nothing in the references -- and hey we have articles like Spinnwebe for goodness' sakes, which probably had like 20 members peak.
    • But then militating for DELETE is that it's a piss-poor article -- its not very neutral, not even borderline acceptably NPOV really, and that shouldn't matter because we can fix that, but can we fix it with this article? As a practical matter maybe not, because Wikipediocracy partisans have camped out there, and who wants to deal with that.
    • But then militating for KEEP is that, you know, it looks kind of mediocre if we refuse to carry an article on our own worst critic, when it is kind judgement call. Potential bad publicity someday too, as a practical consideration.
    • But then, I wanted to DELETE it after posting on the talk page and getting called a bunch of nasty names for no reason by Wikipediocracy partisans. Who needs that? Fuck 'em.
    • But then, maybe we should KEEP it, because if we delete it the Wikipediocracy partisans heads will asplode and we'll have to hear about how this AfD was worse than the Holocaust and Jimmy Wales planned all this like a sinister corrupt puppetmaster (who's worse than Hitler) and they'll be even more bitter and maybe fly a plane into the server building or something.
    • But then, DELETE it because they hate us no matter what we do. Unless their dial goes up to 11, they couldn't be any more unpleasant and hateful they already are, so why cater to them.
    • And then, you know, look at the size of that talk page. Either this article is going to be huge timesink, or the normal people will give up and the article will suck forever, and neither of those is helpful to the Wikipedia, so WP:IAR DELETE. This was basically the deciding factor for me: the article sucks and probably always will. Burn it. Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, your argument almost makes me want to change my !vote to keep. But only for the lulz, as I hadn't bothered with the talk page of that article before. I think it would be damn hilarious if some Wikipediocrats are ultimately topic banned from the article for what seem like inevitable COI/POV/WP:OWN issues. Resolute 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it perpetually on the delete list Marking it for deletion occupies the editors that would normally be at Noticeboards and Arbcom in efforts to improve a marginally noteworthy article. Keeping them occupied searching for references other than one "journalist" at the the Daily Dot (who?) keeps the drama down in other areas. Please keep relisting for deletion. --DHeyward (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sometimes one needs to step back from the alphabet soup of policies, guidelines, and essays and get back to the essence. We want to build a comprehensive neutral point of view encyclopedia. To do that, we need to exclude topics on which insufficient independent sources exist to build NPOV articles, and for sake of reasonable balance we don't want to create articles covering in excruciating detail topics that no-one will ever care about other than a minuscule group of devotees -- especially if that group will unavoidably take a partisan point of view. Our requirements on not-just-passing-mention coverage in reliable independent sources are a good pragmatic litmus test for all this. With regards to this article: the independent sources are not the strongest ever, but adequate to get started. Clearly there are enough eyeballs to ensure the article does not become a self-promoting backwater or a critical coatrack. Is having an article on this topic self-referential and is it sad that so many other articleworthy topics are not yet covered - yes, but deleting this is not a remedy. Finally, to the extent this is still debatable, being a bit extra careful that we are not censoring dissent, and that we at least try to cover our own critics in an NPOV way, should push us to keep rather than delete. Martinp (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with what you say, and normally I would have voted to keep for exactly those reasons. My point is that, as you say, "We want to build a comprehensive neutral point of view encyclopedia", and this one particular article isn't neutral and -- sadly, but let us face reality -- probably never will be, due to our internal politics and processes and the limits of patience and endurance of normal editors to deal with a swarmlet of tireless, tendentious, and frequently rudely hurtful editors for whom the Wikipedia is, at best, #2 in the list of websites that they wish to see benefit here. This is sad, but let's not pretend it's not true. Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention that the article is already a coatrack. Lots of detail of criticism of Wikipedia, but the paltry few sentences that actually talk about Wikipediocracy are all cited to Wikipediocracy itself. Resolute 16:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Neutral" does not mean "evenhanded". An article on Wikipediocracy will become more evenhanded if/when 3rd party sources do more than occasionally jump on a criticism of Wikipedia that is discussed on Wikipediocracy. The point is there is sufficient 3rd party coverage -- barely -- that we can start to write an article on the 'Cracy. And in view of the natural pro-Wikipedia bias otherwise on Wikipedia itself -- not a bad thing, mind you -- I am not overly worried if this article sails a bit close to the wind the other way. As to the point about the rudeness Herostratus experienced: I work in an environment that values pretty robust dissent, but there are boundaries on the style of dissent that you do not violate multiple times and expect to have a good long-term career. Unfortunately, this does not hold on Wikipedia. It takes pretty egregious and completely tonedeaf rudeness to be "fired". If it were up to me, I would block much more often (but quite impersonally) for rudeness with 1,2,4,8,16,... day escalations. I think discourse would improve rapidly if people erred routinely on the side of politeness rather than rudeness, and those blocks would actually rapidly become unnecessary. But the community does not agree with me on this and so such is life - and therefore contributor rudeness is not a reason the delete an article either. Martinp (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I had originally stated in my ACTIVIST essay, rudeness is often used as a weapon by topic area activists to chase away less dedicated editors with perceived, opposing POVs. Anyway, that's getting away a little from the discussion you guys are engaged in above. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD resembles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volapük Wikipedia (2nd nomination). That was also a case of an article related to Wikipedia where no independent sources could be found that gave any significant coverage of the subject. One related event had gained a small amount of attention, but nothing talked about the website itself. The solution in that case was to move the article to Wikipedia:Volapük Wikipedia without redirect. The article is preserved in the WP namespace, since it is clearly of interest to Wikipedians, but removed from mainspace since there is no evidence of notability. It seems like a reasonable compromise. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I'd forgotten about that AfD, never went back to check to see how it went. IMO that was a rather unintelligent close, as there was virtually no support at all for the action that the closing admin undertook. That may be ripe for a DRV filing if someone was so inclined. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure was based on merits of the arguments, as it should be, not number of votes. As with this one, there were a lot of "keep, clearly notable" votes, and quite a few "keep, Wikipedia topics are important" votes, but nobody could identify any significant discussion of the website by independent sources. It really is quite similar. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrators are charged with finding policy-based consensus out of debates... That was a bad close. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" is found by evaluating the arguments within the framework of WP policies and guidelines. Arguments that provide evidence of conformity or non-conformity obviously have most weight. Opinions that do not relate to policies or guidelines, or give no evidence, have little relevance in determining consensus, no matter how many votes there are. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2. The Salon article has been presented as given non-trivial coverage. In fact, the event it describes is covered in some detail in Robert Clark Young, which cites the Salon article and several others. Moving this article out of mainspace would not remove the information given in the Salon article, which describes the event rather than the website. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Revenge editing" is perhaps one of the best kept secrets in WP. No wonder, the Qworty affair, as written by Wikipediocracy, makes for a good read. In Wikipedia, no-one knows who they're talking to, most of the time. That's why I don't expect WPCY to receive major news media coverage before something really bad starts to hit the fan (which is not entirely out of the question). So, keep digging. — Poeticbent talk 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Decent sourcing. "Criticism of Wikipedia" articles get extra leeway due to us needing to demonstrate that we don't censor. At worst, this sort of article would be merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. This has no place at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, and that only because of the Salon source. This is really pushing the definition of notability. Disclosure: I'm a frequent poster there; and as one, I ask the people who are evidently incredibly keen to keep this - what's the hurry? It'll get some more sources eventually. Be patient. — Scott • talk 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What essay are we talking about? Sorry if I missed something in this behemoth of a discussion, but I thought we were discussing the article Wikipediocracy. Begoon talk 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stray thought. Would it be useful to flag articles like this with a banner at the top saying:
Something like that. If this were agreed, I would be happy to change my vote to "keep". I am not sure where the formal proposal should be made. Wikipedia talk:Notability? I will launch the discussion if there is any support here. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. A subject will either pass or not pass our notability guidelines; there is no middle ground where we stake a "Here There Be Pseudo-Notability" warning on top. This AfD is heading towards a quite resounding keep, so what you do with your vote won't affect the outcome. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing votes with evidence. Like a judge in a court case, the closing admin should ignore unsupported opinions and summarize the evidence that has been presented for and against notability, based on the guideline. "No consensus" would be a cop-out. So far I see no evidence presented for notability, in the sense of sources that discuss the subject. I assume the consensus at this stage is "delete". Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am well-aware of how AfD works, sport, so go patronize someone who may actually be cowed by that sort of thing. AfDs are not votes, and I have made this statement in these sorts of discussions numerous times. However, consensus at times cannot be ignored, particularly when a discussion nears 4-to-1 in favor of retaining this article. Your assumption that this could ever wind up as a "delete" is utterly asinine and divorced from all common sense. In the extremely unlikely event that some admin was dumb enough to try that, they'e be hung out to dry at deletion review and possibly desysopped. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:AFD: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." The arguments in favour of keeping this article are very weak and often not even pretending to be policy-based - keep because "damn all the rules", keep because "we are not censoring dissent" etc etc. Nobody has yet refuted the point made right at the start of this discussion that virtually all of the sources are mere passing mentions of Wikipediocracy. As someone said above, if this article was about a company it would be deleted. The only reason this is getting "keep" votes is because of people's opinions about Wikipediocracy - let's not pretend otherwise. If it does end up being closed as a keep, I'm sure it'll end up at deletion review again, because such a decision would fly in the face of how AfDs are supposed to be evaluated. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to read what I say rather than what you imagine I said. I am quite a a proponent of the "not a vote" ideal, but at times sheer numbers cannot be ignored. I've been on the losing end of many insipid AfDs infested by the Rescue Squad and their loosey-goosey interpretations of notability guidelines, but there was nothing to be done, since it boiled down to "more editors interpret WP:N as X" rather than my "Y". In the case at hand here, you're simply on the short end of the stick. A DRV challenge of a "keep" finding will be interesting, as I note at least a few editors here who voted delete are reliably of the "OMG RESPECT CONSENSUS" bent at deletion review. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hello, ok, this might sound a bit weird but I had this dream last night after eating a giant heap of prawns with some mayonnaise that might have gone off and i was in deep sleep and then this hooded figure comes up to me out of the gloom and there is a sound of trumpets and it announces "I am silver seren" and I find myself throwing myself on the floor in a hue of adoration and then silver seren pushes these hands out of the sleeves of the cloak that he is draped in and the hands, instead of human hands, they are the pincers of a gigantic crab, and the voice coming out of silver seren inscribes this website address onto my hand in a pen, and urges me to make haste there in the morning and make a delete note so this dictionary of slander can no longer inflict its woes on the finest enclyclopedia, and then for some reason one of the crab hands cracks open and lots of ice cream sprays out all over the bedroom furniture and silver seren instructs me "get a spoon" and I get a spoon and I try to taste the ice cream but it just tastes of old vegetable oil and then the rest is lost in the mists of the night but when I wake up I find the web address is still on my arm but instead of in pen it is scratched in there like some demon was scratching at my arm with a pin or a knife in the night and I realise none has been in the room but myself and then I remember the details of the dream and so I find myself here and on these instructions I must vote to delete. Gloria Handerson (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC) — Gloria Handerson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - I can only see this farce being closed as no consensus, in reality. A vast majority of "Keep" votes will have to be discounted for lacking in any valid policy-based argument, but there are still a few that actually do involve an analysis of this website against GNG. Although I do stick with my Delete vote, I do feel that a "Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia" would actually be the best outcome: it keeps happy the "omg delete this and we are censoring" crowd (and, to some degree, the IAR crowd), and it satisfies those that have argued about whether it marginally passes or fails notability guidelines, as it no longer has a standalone article. The problem with this outcome is that only a few editors have mentioned it, and only one actually voted this way, IIRC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote: "A vast majority of "Keep" votes will have to be discounted for lacking in any valid policy-based argument". Ummm..... go and read the comment right above yours and think again about whether it is the "Keep" votes that need to be discounted or the "Delete" votes. Unless you were trying to be humorous or something. Posting that statement right below that comment does seem like a joke.Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, that vote isn't there, and it is being ignored as the obvious trolling that it is. Given the fact that I'm the one who filed an SPI involving that user... seems like someone needs to stop jumping to conclusions, Marek. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the single-purpose accounts were trying to parody the delete arguments. The Fish Man certainly sounds like it. Sort of silly, because nobody is saying we should try to cover up criticism. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think anyone would object to a new section in Criticism of Wikipedia with a title like "Journals and forums that criticize Wikipedia", holding a subsection named "Wikipediocracy" that summarized the Daily Dot and Salon.com stories. There are presumably other chat forums and web journals that could be discussed in that way. But I do not think that is an option as an AfD outcome. I think the decision has to be binary keep/delete, and then merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. The chances of getting consensus on that seem miniscule. If the decision is to delete because no sources discuss the website, which I think would be correct, I would certainly not have any problem with then creating the subsection in Criticism of Wikipedia and a redirect to it. I cannot imagine anyone would object: nobody is trying to suppress discussion of criticism. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Hi Rick, spoke to you earlier at my stall and you gave me the leaflet about this article, I agree this is outrageous and there should not be a page on Wikipedia about a site which is dedicated solely to the destruction of Wikipedia, clearly having an article about this subject just encourages those who find some kind of sick delight in pointing out the flaws with such a useful site, this is not the place for this criticism, let alone the place for neutral articles documenting the criticism that takes place, and the points on the leaflet make this very clear. I urge all others to join in this discussion and to call for this cruel jibe to be struck from the record, I have also been informing my customers to vote in a similar manner and handing out your leaflets - together we are stronger. Dan the Fish Man from Oxford (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC) — Dan the Fish Man from Oxford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who the fuck cares - Seriously, you people have collectively spent 80 bazillion words arguing about something that approx. 100 people in the world could possibly care about. Just flip a coin, for Christ's sake. It honestly doesn't matter in either direction. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I just went through the entire article. I seems well sourced and nicely written without much problems. I didn't check the reliability of the sources though. Deleting it may give an impression to the outside world that Wikipedia is not neutral (as it claims to be) and cannot tolerate it's own criticism. - Jayadevp13 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz. According to whois, the Wikipediocracy.com domain is registered to MyWikiBiz. Wikipediocracy's founding press release gave Gregory Kohs, owner of MyWikiBiz, as the contact. MyWikiBiz started as a service where corporations or individuals could pay to get favorable policy-compliant articles in Wikipedia, or policy-compliant improvements to existing articles. Back in 2006, Kohs got blocked from Wikipedia, and moved on to developing an independent corporate directory. But as of today "we also boast the oldest continuously-operated Wikipedia article-writing service on the Internet." If there is to be a merge and redirect, perhaps it should be to MyWikiBiz. I am not sure if Wikipediocracy is a formal subsidiary, but the two organizations seem very closely related. No need for two separate articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to rain on your super-sleuthing here, but this is pure, Grade-A original research. You can't just look up DNS records and connect your own (quite misguided) dots and expect any product of this to be the basis of editing an article in this project. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediocracy#Domain ownership gives the information, and has for some time. It is no secret. Gregory Kohs announced the launch of Wikipediocracy, he owns the domain, he owns MyWikiBiz. Jimmy Wales blocked him from Wikipedia way back (Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It. p. 140.). Kohs is highly critical of Wikipedia, but he still advertises paid editing services on Wikipedia. I do not see the need for two articles on such closely related topics. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are extremely uninformed and quite frankly ridiculously asinine comments you are making. Let's play the game for a moment and presume that the dastardly Dr. Blofeld Mr. Kohs is the hand behind both entities, mywikibiz and Wikipediocracy. Ok, so...what? One is message board-slash-blog focused on Wikipedia criticism, the other is a business that engages in paid editing. How on God's green Earth does one relate to another, they both exist for completely unrelated reasons. Did you know that both the New England Revolution and the New England Patriots are owned by Robert Kraft? By your dim logic the Revs article shouldn't exist, and should be redirected to the Pats. Both owned by the same guy, right? Both are just sports in the same city, a "closely related topic", right? So why don't you run along and propose that merger. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, they're all Wikipedia articles. Let's merge all 7,075,999 of em to Wikipedia. Think of the time we'll save in arguing about stuff.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[comment posted at 14:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC) removed as per WP:BLP, original available here]  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
I would like everyone to take an especially hard look at Aymatth2's statement above, as nothing else will ever exemplify why this project has a policy prohibiting original research. The reason why we favor reliable sources is that they have a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. The men and women who pen articles, columns, novels, etc...are, on the whole, professionals. Journalists, scholars, fact-checkers, researchers. Aymatth2 is a Wikipedia user, one who adds A & B and produces C, where C is a statement without proof, an argument without merit or a shred of evidence to verify. If I'm not being clear enough here; there is no "parent company" or any sort of relationship whatsoever between the two entities. Kohs registered the URL to get the site its initial web presence, but apart from that is just a regular user and commenter there, the same standing that I have.
Most of the calls to delete...while I may disagree with them...were at least grounded in reality, in a differing interpretation of the project's notability guidelines. Honestly Aymatth2, I think you've done more harm than good for the deletion case with this wild-eyed and factually incorrect conspiracy agenda junk. It is a bit like those who who may have a legitimate criticism of President Obama, only to find themselves overshadowed a bit by birthers. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to criticism of wikipedia. When more sources become available, it would be appropriate to write a short article. At present the article is based is on one flimsy source so it is not possible to give a satisfactory or balanced account of the website, its founders (Gregory Kohs and Eric Barbour?) and its membership. The fact that very few media sources refer to it is an indication that it is not notable away from wikipedia. The article on Wikipedia Review gives more balanced information, although it might have similar sourcing problems. In general I agree with MastCell that this kind of navel-contemplating article is not really encyclopedic. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article has sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. It's also informative. Moreso than the bazillion stubs on this site. The ownership that Mathsci mentioned above is included in the article. Those asking to delete this article seem to either have unusually high standards or perhaps suffer from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They seem to want the article to say worse things about the topic in order to match their personal views. And failing to find independent sources for those views, they want the article deleted. But that's not what WP:GNG says. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid Wikipedia's discussion standards are as high now as they were 5 years ago. And one can edit without logging in to an account. And one tends to do that when one one is rather disappointed by how the regulars of this site just delete anything they don't like, regardless of sources. There are many more Qworty's around here. Perhaps that's why they try so hard to have this article deleted. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Question: It’s not clear to me at this point that this discussion can be closed satisfactorily in either direction, nor does it seem likely that relisting again can be profitable. Further, it seems clear that tensions are increasing, rather than decreasing, on this page. In retrospect, I wonder whether the original relisting was strictly necessary and required; if the original WP:SNOW close had stood for a few months, some would have viewed it as reasonable and some would have seen it as an error, but no side would have seen it as a self-interested betrayal of the project. As things stand, I can't see any close, however eloquent, that won't leave a substantial number of editors who have contributed to this discussion feeling precisely that. Six months or a year from now, matters might stand otherwise; Wikipediocracy may be more notable, or less, or our view of it may change, or the horse may talk. Kicking this can down the road on procedural grounds might well be in the best interests of the Project; it would satisfy the current Keeps without prejudice to the interests of the current Deletes, the current Merges, or either faction of the current Redirects. It might also be procedurally correct, but even if it is not mandatory to find a technical or procedural cause for delay, I think it might well be tactful and therefore desirable. And that should come sooner rather than later, because things here are getting worse, not better. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident that some experienced and capable soul will find it possible to close. Like any other AFD, some will disagree, some will agree, most will accept the result, regardless of outcome and move on to other things. There have been many discussions that were more contentious, more complicated and arguably more important than this by a large margin, yet they were closed properly. Difficulty is not a valid reason to avoid closure. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, although perceptions and general practice can change, topics do not get "less notable" from one year to the next. Either there has been significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources, or there has not. If such coverage has already occurred - many here claim that it has not - then no amount of book-burning or linkrot is going to make it go away. (The reverse is possible though, of course, as described in the essay Wikipedia:Too soon.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s not clear to me at this point that this discussion can be closed satisfactorily in either direction - isn't that called "no consensus to delete"? — Scott • talk 14:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there anybody else here getting déjà vu? — Scott • talk 08:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.