Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (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.--Wizardman 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A wiki, which—although its community seems to overlap somewhat with our own—does not meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB. The only two references not to the site itself are two trivial mentions in the Charlotte Observer and Florida Trend. As a result of not having any independent, published sources, the article suffers from the same problems that you would expect, namely it is full of original research and written from the personal knowledge of its community members. The first nomination was speedily kept without any serious discussion of the sites notability. I know that it was previously a featured article, but it was defeatured for having no sources. Please don't vote keep just because you've heard of it. Savidan 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Previously featured article, previously speedy kept, notable website which meets inclusion guidelines, not to mention we have article for far far less notable website, e.g. "Lostpedia" which appears to set precedent for keeping. Matthew 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Because it is/isn't the case for article X" isn't a compelling reason (not) to keep/delete/alter/etc. an article. --EEMeltonIV 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reread my comment, "not to mention" - à la, I'm not using it as a reason to keep the article, I'm merely stating that Wikipedia is in possession of other such articles. Matthew 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You said it sets a "precedent for keeping", which both EEMeltonIV and I are rebutting. Savidan 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please reread my message, I'm not giving any definitive words in that statement, I stated "appears". Matthew 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That is a good reason, a bad reason would be that "Keep- I like it" .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia does at least appear to be well-sourced. However, the existence of other non-notables is not an argument. Savidan 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Very notable site, pointless to delete Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-known and notable website. --Carioca 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep here are some notability points: [1] [2] possibly more in Starlog and other Trek-oriented magazines. FrozenPurpleCube 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a former featured article. If it was so non-notable as nom said, why it was promoted featured in the first place? suspect bad faith nom. Wooyi 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The fact it was even considered as a feature article -- and successfully -- IMO satisfies all notability requirements. 23skidoo 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article includes references with nontrivial coverage as a primary subject in the Charlotte Observer, Florida Trend, and the New York Times, satisfying WP:ATT and WP:N. In addition, it gets 27,600 Google hits , showing its prominence online. Edison 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The sources are not as convincing as I'd like, but it was a featured article. That says something to me. Abeg92contribs 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I completely missed the long "References" section. Changing to Strong Keep. Abeg92contribs 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as previous featured article with references. Possible case for WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an adequately referenced article.-- danntm ^T _C 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If WP:WEB really doesn't include this topic then the fault lies with WP:WEB, IMO. Bryan Derksen 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — this is one of those numerous times when we must shove policy (except the Big Three) out of our way and (gasp) Do The Right Thing. We're building an encyclopedia, not playing Nomic (or Silly Buggers). ➥the Epopt 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it lacks sources, they need to be provided, but FrozenPurpleCube shows such sources do exist, thereby meeting the primary notability criterion. Mgm|^(talk) 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Wooyi notes above, this is a former Featured Article, which itself is strong proof for a consensus that this article is not only notable, but an important subject. While I admit it's possible for a persuasive argument to be made to delete current or former FA, to do so one needs to address that rating & show that there was some undeniable error in making the article an FA in the first place. Reading the conversation over its nomination for FA and its demotion, I don't see any such error. -- llywrch 07:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 08:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news archive has 85 entries; Google Scholar has five probable hits, and Google Books has four hits, of which one (ISBN 0965357546, 2003) mentions a published proposal by a Sharon Ferraro of a yet to be built fan/archival website called "Memory Attack". John Vandenberg 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with nominator and strongly with comment by EEMeltonIV. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination demonstrates a complete lack of anything resembling a clue, judgement or common sense, and any nomination from someone who can demonstrate such grossly defective judgement in complete sincerity should probably be flushed. (That's an expanded form of "delete nominator.") - David Gerard 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Please maintain a civil tone. Although I agree the article should be kept. The nominator is correct in that much of it is unsourced. --EEMeltonIV 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's sheer arseclownery. Saying "you are an idiot" is incivil; saying "you have bad judgement" is a statement on bad judgement. Tell me where I'm wrong - David Gerard 13:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, the "I attacked the action not the actor" bit. Compelling. Your tone, insofar as it comes across through text, and comments -- e.g. "lack of anything resembling a clue", "delete nominator", "arseclownery" -- are general exemplars of why Don't be a dick should be a policy. --EEMeltonIV 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nominations like this are great examples of why WP:POINT should have consequences. This nomination clearly fails WP:Afd#Before nominating an AfD, and as a result clogs up the system, preventing people from adequately addressing the other more borderline cases. John Vandenberg 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep per all of the above. - Denny 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB, then WP:WEB is in error and should be amended. -- Arwel (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The same arguments could be made for any other concentrated wiki's. This is the foremost Trek wiki, a very notable site, and as mentioned a former featured article. Torlek 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What utter nonsense to nominate this. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Duh. --Mike Schiraldi 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:WEB. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Vandenberg (and also Arwel, although per JV's comment, it looks like it does indeed meet WP:WEB. It can use some better sourcing, and that sourcing looks to be available, so deletion is not appropriate. schi ^talk 18:32, 8 March 2007 (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.