Content deleted Content added
Markusbradley (talk | contribs) |
→List of quote databases: captain obvious, reporting for duty |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
*'''Keep''' This article is a [[Wikipedia:Lists|list article]], not a standalone topic-article. The [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability guideline]] does not limit the ''content'' of articles. [[WP:N]] states: ''"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a '''topic''' is for '''its own article'''. They '''do not''' directly limit the '''content''' of articles."'' The nom clearly does not understand that list-type articles are handled differently than standalone articles.<br />Moreover, as pointed out above, the nom has a clear bias/COI when it comes to '''competing''' articles due to his involvement with [[bash.org]]. Rather than add say a {{tl|refimprove}} template so someone could deal with any potential ref issues and address any [[WP:RS]] concerns he might have, and instead of following [[WP:BEFORE]], he decided to just prod and AfD with a laundry list of guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297885954] in hopes that something would stick. He also prodded this article after it had already been prodded once before, which is a violation of the [[WP:PROD]] policy. The first prod was on 2006-05-12 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=289476128] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=289579526] and the second prod was on 2009-06-22 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297885954] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297893623]<br />Contrary to the above comment, I don't see where this comparison list article ''"falls afoul of [[WP:NOT]]"'', and although the information included is very much [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], I do agree that some of the refs need improvement. That however is an editorial issue that should be addressed per [[WP:BEFORE]] and is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion.<br />--[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' This article is a [[Wikipedia:Lists|list article]], not a standalone topic-article. The [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability guideline]] does not limit the ''content'' of articles. [[WP:N]] states: ''"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a '''topic''' is for '''its own article'''. They '''do not''' directly limit the '''content''' of articles."'' The nom clearly does not understand that list-type articles are handled differently than standalone articles.<br />Moreover, as pointed out above, the nom has a clear bias/COI when it comes to '''competing''' articles due to his involvement with [[bash.org]]. Rather than add say a {{tl|refimprove}} template so someone could deal with any potential ref issues and address any [[WP:RS]] concerns he might have, and instead of following [[WP:BEFORE]], he decided to just prod and AfD with a laundry list of guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297885954] in hopes that something would stick. He also prodded this article after it had already been prodded once before, which is a violation of the [[WP:PROD]] policy. The first prod was on 2006-05-12 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=289476128] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=289579526] and the second prod was on 2009-06-22 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297885954] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297893623]<br />Contrary to the above comment, I don't see where this comparison list article ''"falls afoul of [[WP:NOT]]"'', and although the information included is very much [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], I do agree that some of the refs need improvement. That however is an editorial issue that should be addressed per [[WP:BEFORE]] and is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion.<br />--[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' agreed with above poster [[User:Markusbradley|Markusbradley]] ([[User talk:Markusbradley|talk]]) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' agreed with above poster [[User:Markusbradley|Markusbradley]] ([[User talk:Markusbradley|talk]]) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Note''' - some obvious [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] going on here... //[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>( [[User Talk:Blaxthos|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Blaxthos|c]] )</small> 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:10, 23 June 2009
List of quote databases
- List of quote databases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD. Content herein fails WP:N and WP:RS. The only member that has ever had an article with any demonstrated notability (bash.org -- full disclosure, I own bash.org) was deleted a few years back as failing WP:N and WP:RS -- see full AFD here. No sense in having an indiscriminate list on topics that are all wholly non-notable; I don't see what criteria is being used to "discriminate" this list...
- Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete linkfarm (short and pretty but still a linkfarm). Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, so. Blaxthos. Just because you own Bash.org and that you created an article about it a while back (but got deleted) you think this should be deleted too? This is a list of QDB's including bash.org, I don't see the problem in it. The columns do need to be modified to be better. Eckstasy (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org -- a reading of that article's AfD will reveal I abstained (WP:COI) but urged the community to keep the article. The community, however, didn't agree. :) I would have also nominated this article if it was any other sort of List of my favorite websites article... Do you have any rationale for your Keep !vote? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org". I'd have to disagree with that. You nominated this article for deletion purely because your article for Bash.org was deleted. Eckstasy (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- A quick glance at my nomination history will show plenty of distaste for all sorts of List of... articles, so I'd venture to say empirical evidence doesn't support your assertion. :) A little good faith goes a long way... cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It also shows plenty of nominations for articles relating to quote databases. It makes more sense that because your article was deleted; you have to nominate all others relating to quote databases. Eckstasy (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It does not, because I have not nominated any such article since my participation in that AfD. You've presented no argument towards inclusion beyond an ad hominem logical fallacy. I had a feeling I should have resisted the bait to begin with, and you now have my regret for having taken it. Best of luck! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QDB.us, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IRCQuotes, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bash.org ..[...] Eckstasy (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It does not, because I have not nominated any such article since my participation in that AfD. You've presented no argument towards inclusion beyond an ad hominem logical fallacy. I had a feeling I should have resisted the bait to begin with, and you now have my regret for having taken it. Best of luck! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It also shows plenty of nominations for articles relating to quote databases. It makes more sense that because your article was deleted; you have to nominate all others relating to quote databases. Eckstasy (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- A quick glance at my nomination history will show plenty of distaste for all sorts of List of... articles, so I'd venture to say empirical evidence doesn't support your assertion. :) A little good faith goes a long way... cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org". I'd have to disagree with that. You nominated this article for deletion purely because your article for Bash.org was deleted. Eckstasy (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org -- a reading of that article's AfD will reveal I abstained (WP:COI) but urged the community to keep the article. The community, however, didn't agree. :) I would have also nominated this article if it was any other sort of List of my favorite websites article... Do you have any rationale for your Keep !vote? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and expand, I didn't know that such an article exists. the article has no integration to others. the project irc would look after this article, if the deletion-tag is removed! mabdul 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, I agree with Mabdul If it's kept, it can be moved to QDB or something of the sort and then expanded (a real article with more information about what a quote database is, and then the list at the bottom ?) Eckstasy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment/Featurelist: which im-protocols are allowed to submitted mabdul 09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Either way a version of this comparison table could still be included in an article about Online quote databases. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Trivial, falls afoul of WP:NOT in a couple cases, and a list in an encyclopedia needs to be encyclopedic- I don't see any sources for those management figures, or any of the assertions about anything else. Being a list doesn't magically exempt you from sourcing. --Mask? 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This article is a list article, not a standalone topic-article. The notability guideline does not limit the content of articles. WP:N states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." The nom clearly does not understand that list-type articles are handled differently than standalone articles.
Moreover, as pointed out above, the nom has a clear bias/COI when it comes to competing articles due to his involvement with bash.org. Rather than add say a {{refimprove}} template so someone could deal with any potential ref issues and address any WP:RS concerns he might have, and instead of following WP:BEFORE, he decided to just prod and AfD with a laundry list of guidelines [1] in hopes that something would stick. He also prodded this article after it had already been prodded once before, which is a violation of the WP:PROD policy. The first prod was on 2006-05-12 [2] [3] and the second prod was on 2009-06-22 [4] [5]
Contrary to the above comment, I don't see where this comparison list article "falls afoul of WP:NOT", and although the information included is very much verifiable, I do agree that some of the refs need improvement. That however is an editorial issue that should be addressed per WP:BEFORE and is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) - Keep agreed with above poster Markusbradley (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note - some obvious canvassing going on here... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)