Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structurae (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the 2nd nomination. Found spamming at I.M. Pei.--Pagepage3242342 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Pagepage3242342 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Snowball - I can only quote User:Denimadept Structurae is a major website referred to as a source by many structure-related articles. Deleting this article would be rather ridiculous. Used in {{Structurae}} and {{Structurae person}} reference templates. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the site has been 'mentioned' in various fora, in such a way that might appear 'spammy', I don't think so. The site has been around since at least December 2004. That doesn't seem fly-by-night "look-at-me!" to me. Picking just one of the "What links here" pages, Tsing Ma Bridge, gets me external link Tsing Ma Bridge in the Structurae database which gets me to information I wouldn't necessarily want here, but would likely to useful to people. There is even a template Template:Structurae created by User:Hqb to aid making references to the database. And over at de [1]. And over at id [2]. Oh, site's been around since at least 2000, as seen in an old review Highbeam Research. It is used as a reference for particulars at other sites [3][4] though these may not be the most impressive. In fact, this is way out of my areas. And I guess the question is, how can we separate the enthusiasm on the part of apparently several editors, which is apparently the cause of the nomination, from the question of "is this a useful site?" (And, OBTW, your deletions at IMPei have been immediately reverted by someone else) Shenme (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, there's over 1300 links to Structurae. I just can not believe it is not a useful site, giving particulars we don't want stuffed in here. Sounds like a sister site to me. Not a good nom methinks. Shenme (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) (Oh, same noted by another below)[reply]

• Keep Extremely useful and detailed site which is used for multiple references and templates is miles beyond 'spam'. This seems like a bad-faith nomination from an editor that does not understand discussion or the intricacies of the GDFL. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With so many different established an trustworthy users adding links to this site in articles and it having a major part in a relevant template by consensus, I can't possibly see a case of spamming here. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Structurae has been used as a reference by my count in over 1500 Wikipedia articles.

Nominating Structurae for deletion and removing references from I. M. Pei are this user's Pagepage3242342 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first and only contributions. This behaviour is often associated with sockpuppets. I would block him for edit warring. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. - Now you can block him for breaking the - three - revert - rule - --Petri Krohn (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been warned on their talk page. Shenme (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination may be pointy and may be closed as such but article as it stands does not demonstrate it's notability. It has only one outside reference. Being used by wikipedia as a reference is no claim to notability and not a reason to keep. The site can still be a valid source without a page here, trustworthy editors on wikipedia using it does not make it notable. Being spammed into wikipedia is no reason for deletion apart from G11, which is not being claimed. I think maybe the best thing is to close Keep as pointy nom but with no suggestion this afd makes it notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this in fact failed the notability test, then we should move the article to Wikipedia:Structurae and fix the templates accordingly. Anyway, I have included this in Category:Wikipedia sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've been asked to comment here as the creator of the {{Structurae}} template. I made it only after noticing that a very substantial fraction of existing Wikipedia pages on bridges and towers were already including a general external link to the relevant Structurae entry, or using it as a reference for some specific fact. So it seemed useful to give all those links a more uniform and informative appearance (many were just bare urls). As a side benefit, should the current structurae.de url ever change, as long as the database keys stay the same, it will be much easier to fix one template, instead of updating thousands of articles individually. While the Structurae site itself (perhaps understandably) hasn't seen much coverage in mainstream media, I would say that being considered a useful reference/relevant link by a large number of disparate Wikipedia content authors is in itself a sign of independent notability. (I have seen absolutely no indication that Structurae links have been mass-added to articles by anyone affiliated with that site, or other spammy behavior that would negate the significance of Structurae being cited by Wikipedia articles.) That said, the Structurae article would certainly benefit from a few more references, and I wouldn't be averse to slapping a {{refimprove}} or similar on it. Hqb (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:WEB. No reliable sources that are substantively about the site, no awards of consequence and no independent distribution of content. That some number of articles use the site as a source is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself for determining notability. Otto4711 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination by what does seem to be a sock of someone, because I have seen similar usernames before — just can't remember where. MuZemike (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be refering to user Pagepage11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD does not meet the speedy keep criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK Keep then, and it can be closed tomorrow. referenced/notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "referenced/notable"? What are these references that establish notability? There are certainly none in the article. Easy to say "referenced/notable", harder to actually give references and establish notability. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (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.