Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouroboros (weblog)

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 merge to SAGE KE. - Bobet 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog formed in August 2006, this month. Hard to believe it has become notable in such a short time. Punctured Bicycle 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no Alexa ranking (unsurprisingly). NawlinWiki 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please specify violation of Wikipedia terms of use, ideally with a link to the specific guideline. (I am the article originator; as I'm just getting started on Wikipedia, I'd like to avoid starting articles that are in any way inappropriate, so that's not a rhetorical request; your help and advice very much appreciated.) It's not clear from the deletion policy that either broad influence or Alexa rank of the subject is a criterion for maintenance of such an article. Subject is a website similar to & descended from a now-defunct website (SAGE KE) that had major influence within a specialized field and continues to have a Wikipedia entry. As with SAGE KE, Ouroboros enjoys wide readership within its field. Minor correction to nom: subject site originated in July 2006. Mycophage 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First look at WP:WEB, which is a guideline for web content. I suspect SAGE KE has a Wikipedia article because it was created by the AAAS, but I'm not sure. ColourBurst 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for this, that's just what I was looking for. I was unaware of this document when I initiated the article. Mycophage 03:54, 1 September 2006
  • Comment: If the facts are as you describe them here, Mycophage (that the weblog is a continuation of a notable website) then I'd suggest that the appropriate thing to do would be to merge the information from Ouroboros (weblog) to SAGE KE under an appropriate new section header, and then redirect the Ouroboros article to point to the SAGE KE article. Right now, assuming that the Ouroboros weblog is notable just because it's the successor to an existing notable website is crystal-balling, but it's certainly part of the history of that website. And if at some future point, the weblog can be said without hesitation to be notable in its own right, the information can be spun out from the website's article again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, having had a chance to look at the weblog in question, it seems to me that it's stretching the truth to say that it's "descended from" SAGE KE. From thefirst post it looks like this is a new weblog, created by someone who was not associated with SAGE KE but a reader of it. I'm afraid that so far there's no evidence to suggest that this is even a notable development in the history of SAGE KE. Weak delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge into SAGE KE. This does not merit an article until it establishes its own notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Smerge"? I'm unfamiliar with that term. What does it mean? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is short for speedy merge. ColourBurst 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smerge After reading the web content guidelines, it's clear to me that independent noteworthiness is important for a free-standing entry for a web site, so I would tend to agree. Or just delete; if the site ever does become as impactful as SAGE KE then some future inspired fan will re-initiate :-) Mycophage 03:56, 1 September 2006
• Comment If the site originated in July 2006 then the article is factually inaccurate. Punctured Bicycle 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've fixed that error. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:30, 31 August 2006 (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.