- 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 no consensus to delete. Merge possible, but not really seeing a definitive consensus for that here. W.marsh 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Although mentioned by the Associated Press, the site doesn't have multiple non-trivial sources. Interiot 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Wow. Talk about irony. Anyway, the AP story linked to in the article is actually about another website. The Alexa page rank of 244,798 doesn't exactly impress either. I'm still kind of torn since I like the idea of a blog that keeps a record of deleted WP content. However, in the end it clearly doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. →Bobby← 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; As I see it, it's just a blog someone created earlier this month. Right now, it fails WP:WEB. One mention at the end of a newspaper article (often where less important details are placed) doesn't quite cut it, and as above, the Alexa rank is weak. Perhaps later this will meet the inclusion guidelines, but it doesn't now. Crystallina 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bloggish, and fails WP:WEB. —The Great Llamamoo? 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Sounds like an interesting idea. ---J.S (T/C) 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Clifford A. Pickover. Seems more proper to be there. Yanksox 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment From the AP article:
"Archive.org isn't the only site trying to save the ever-changing Web. Wikipedia.com, which constantly regurgitates itself with user-inputted data, is now being watched by wikidumper.blogsot.com.
"Any information not truthful enough to make it into Wikipedia is probably dubious twice over, but Wikidumper helps provide some oversight to the editors of Wikipedia, who can take down an entry for any number of reasons." Gretnagod 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Swpb talk contribs 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Yanksox. hateless 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bobby and Crystallina. Sandstein 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even when I like the idea a lot (and already subscribe to their RSS feed). This is more of project space material, regrettably, likely not famous enough yet to warrant an article space article. I don't mind it if someone recreates it later when there's no question about this thing's notability, but I'm sceptical on whether or not it ever will get there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm definitely willing to change my view if this post's claims can be substantiated. Mentions press from different sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above, the last thing we need is someone having a proof that we are biased against our critics Alf photoman 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia's numerous critics will find bias no matter what, because that critics do. We should be concerned with enforcing Wikipedia's consensus-built policies consistently, rather than with allowing external criticisms to dictate the actions of the community. IMO, this is a very weak arguement against deletion. —Swpb talk contribs 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what exactly is "critical" about Wikidumper anyway? It's not like they have an agenda of "look at all these valid and well-sourced articles that they've unjustly deleted"; they publish just about everything that may be deleted later (ranging from blatant BJAODN material to little-known topics). I'd be a little bit hesitant to lump them among critical sites; at best they're doing a service to the community, at worst they're just making people say "look at that ridiculous stuff they published - but good thing it looks like they deleted it." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can it be said that WikiDumper is non-notable if it has 24,600 Google hits and 39 articles in Google news? Isn't this objective evidence that it is notable? November7 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 15,700 google hits for "wikidumper", and three in google news. What are your search terms? Also, a google test alone is not enough to establish popularity for web content, much less notability (See Wikipedia:Search engine test). —Swpb talk contribs 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In Google news, you do not get the full list unless you select "Sort by date." Sort by date gives you 39 hits for a wikidumper search. November7 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 39 hits, only three of which are unique. The rest are duplicates of the same story wire story. —Swpb talk contribs 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Recently emerged as notable. Three more references by reliable sources, CNETUSA TodayAssociated Press, added to article. Passes WP:WEB --Oakshade 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So we have a passing mention in an AP article about a different site, republished by other news organisations (already discussed above) and a mention in a newspaper-run blog. I still think this is project space material at best... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Yanksox. If not Merge than Keep. It was inspired by Wikipedia in a way, and its purpose is not to boycott Wikipedia (at least not that I can tell). Seems notable enough. -WarthogDemon 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither inspiration by Wikipedia or a lack of ill-will towards Wikipedia is an arguement for notability. —Swpb talk contribs 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, I should've clarified; I meant that thinking it was "ill will" was going to be why I said deletion. What's notabe about it is that it was inspired by Wikipedia in of itself, so it would deserve at the very least a merge to Clifford's page. -WarthogDemon 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, inspiration by Wikipedia is not a sign of notability. See WP:WEB. —Swpb talk contribs 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I change my vote then? >_> -WarthogDemon 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's up to you, AfD's are more about discussion than vote counting. —Swpb talk contribs 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I change my vote then? >_> -WarthogDemon 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, inspiration by Wikipedia is not a sign of notability. See WP:WEB. —Swpb talk contribs 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, I should've clarified; I meant that thinking it was "ill will" was going to be why I said deletion. What's notabe about it is that it was inspired by Wikipedia in of itself, so it would deserve at the very least a merge to Clifford's page. -WarthogDemon 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither inspiration by Wikipedia or a lack of ill-will towards Wikipedia is an arguement for notability. —Swpb talk contribs 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AP is good enough, and it looks like extreme bias to delete a site that might reflec t critically upon our own decisions here. DGG 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Clifford A. Pickover. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A passing mention in an AP article about another subject doesn't meet "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis added); the content of the site isn't relevant, it doesn't matter if it's critical of Wikipedia. Also, block the nominator for AfDing his article in the same edit as his creation of it, and for writing an edit counter that doesn't work because enwiki's not replicated, and for some reason isn't recognizing my opt-in for commons, even though I clearly did it here, and for changing the graphs (which I can't see for myself on Commons) from line graphs to solid graphs, which are ugly. --Rory096 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least we agree on the deletion reason. Phew, okay: Not sure what's wrong with the opt-in, but I've manually fixed yours. Enwiki replication isn't my doing, the toolserver admins (River/Kate and DaBpunkt) are at the controls on that one. And I've fixed the solid graphs just now. So does anybody else want to make feature requests while calling for a blocking? :) --Interiot 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but now I'd like to know - what is up with AfDing your own article in the same edit you created it? —Swpb talk contribs 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be obvious, but if it's really necessary to dissect the frog... I'm not the only one who recognized the irony in AfDing a site that rescues articles slated for deletion. [1] Nonetheless, this isn't a charade... I wrote the best article I could, it's truthful as far as I know, and my nomination is sincere. [2] While I didn't intend to take up so many people's time considering the AfD, what's done is done, not everybody agrees with me, and I think the AfD should be evaluated only on its merits since so many people have weighed in. --Interiot 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No personal offense meant, but this whole thing smacks of WP:POINT to me. The author even included "In an interesting twist of fate, this article has been marked for deletion form the Wikipedia." as his/her closing sentence in the original article. (I hope it's OK to comment here even if without a real account...) --75.108.178.227 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- November7 wrote that, [3] but November7 didn't author the Wikipedia article. Or are you saying User:November7 is the author of wikidumper.org (Clifford A. Pickover)? --Interiot 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this is arguably WP:POINT, though I'm not sure what the point is. I for one don't appreciate it. —Swpb talk contribs 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not making a point, nor is he disrupting Wikipedia, so how is he violating WP:POINT? Both the article creation and the AfD were good faith and valid, whether or not they were by the same person. I might add that Interiot is one of our most respected editors/toolserver users. --Rory096 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of Interiot's status, I have his code on my monobook page. However, I don't see how creating a page and immediately AfDing it can both be valid actions. If Interiot felt the article should not exist, he should not have created it, and if he felt it should, why would he list it for AfD? His comment about dissecting the frog implies he meant the process to be a joke. And wasting editor's time on an AfD, while not the most disruptive act possible, is nonetheless disruptive. —Swpb talk contribs 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes alot of sense. This article is in very good Wiki-form. Having created several articles, I know the work that goes into it and nobody would go through all that trouble and then immediately send to AfD without having some agenda. --Oakshade 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Swpb is right, in hindsight, it was a bad idea. I apologize for using up people's time on an AfD while misleading them.
- That said, both the article and the AfD have been worked on by multiple other people, and have expanded quite a bit beyond my initial shady contributions. In order to not further waste the time they've consumed working on the article and AfD, hopefully the AfD can end as normally as possible. In addition, because it's the only thing I can undo at this point, I can strike my 'vote' if anyone asks (feel free to email me). Though, for what it's worth, my AfD reason was the more "valid"/more sincere of the two. --Interiot 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes alot of sense. This article is in very good Wiki-form. Having created several articles, I know the work that goes into it and nobody would go through all that trouble and then immediately send to AfD without having some agenda. --Oakshade 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of Interiot's status, I have his code on my monobook page. However, I don't see how creating a page and immediately AfDing it can both be valid actions. If Interiot felt the article should not exist, he should not have created it, and if he felt it should, why would he list it for AfD? His comment about dissecting the frog implies he meant the process to be a joke. And wasting editor's time on an AfD, while not the most disruptive act possible, is nonetheless disruptive. —Swpb talk contribs 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not making a point, nor is he disrupting Wikipedia, so how is he violating WP:POINT? Both the article creation and the AfD were good faith and valid, whether or not they were by the same person. I might add that Interiot is one of our most respected editors/toolserver users. --Rory096 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but now I'd like to know - what is up with AfDing your own article in the same edit you created it? —Swpb talk contribs 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least we agree on the deletion reason. Phew, okay: Not sure what's wrong with the opt-in, but I've manually fixed yours. Enwiki replication isn't my doing, the toolserver admins (River/Kate and DaBpunkt) are at the controls on that one. And I've fixed the solid graphs just now. So does anybody else want to make feature requests while calling for a blocking? :) --Interiot 21:10, 4 December 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.