Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, although the logic in so doing is borked at best. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11[edit]
Not encyclopedic, vanity. --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, see Wikimedia. We have articles on all of the Wikipedia sister projects. RickK 22:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per RickK. I think the project itself is more debatable than this. Hedley 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --WikiFan04ß 17:39, 30 May 2005 (CDT)
- Delete. This is a good first step to finally deleting the project itself. --Alterego 22:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we possibly want to do that? RickK 22:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I explained my reasonings here last year. IMHO, it should be moved to wikicities and be displayed with advertisements. It's aim to be neutral is a joke...Please help preserve their memory. Some, such as Ward Churchill, preserve a different point of view. Anyway, OT.--Alterego 02:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Some have suggested the project be deleted for various reasons. However, I don't think that deleting the article would have anything to do with it (see Nupedia, that's defunct but still has an article). Hedley 23:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we possibly want to do that? RickK 22:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. My guess (though I have no numbers) is that this site is much less popular, in terms of visitors or audience, than many we would delete as non-notable or advertisements. Are we applying a different standard to this article because it is a Wikimedia project? If we do, is that a self-reference? Demi T/C 22:58, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- It is debatable that such standards of self-reference already exist. For example, Angela Beesley may be less notable than some articles deleted, but stays for being a major figure within a major internet project. The same may end up applying here. Hedley 23:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hordes of people vote keep on bands with one EP, small town radio stations, and schools with only a few dozen students. It seems absurd to delete
a major web project likethis because we're over-concerned about being self-referential. Gamaliel 23:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- "Major web project"? Its own statistics page says that it has "274 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.". That's about the size of my own web site. SPUI's search shows 20 results for what links to this site's main page (6 if one discounts the links that turn out to be from this and other Wikimedia projects). One of my own web pages has four times that many (0 of which are from Wikimedia projects). This wiki gets 4 hits in total on Google Groups. The URL of another of my web pages was mentioned 8 times on Usenet in the past week alone, according to Google Groups. Is my web site a "major web project"? If these are the criteria, please let me know how soon my web site will have its own Wikipedia article. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- I thought the wikimemorial was more active and significant than it is, but reading your comments and the votes below, it seems I had a mistaken impression about the size, scope, and status of the project. Gamaliel 15:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Major web project"? Its own statistics page says that it has "274 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.". That's about the size of my own web site. SPUI's search shows 20 results for what links to this site's main page (6 if one discounts the links that turn out to be from this and other Wikimedia projects). One of my own web pages has four times that many (0 of which are from Wikimedia projects). This wiki gets 4 hits in total on Google Groups. The URL of another of my web pages was mentioned 8 times on Usenet in the past week alone, according to Google Groups. Is my web site a "major web project"? If these are the criteria, please let me know how soon my web site will have its own Wikipedia article. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- Comment: Alexa lumps it in with the rest of Wikipedia, so I can't give an Alexa rank. But a Google search for links to it and a Google search for "sep11.wikipedia.org" give VERY few results outside Wikipedia and mirrors. If this were not a Wikimedia project, it would be unanimously deleted as vanity. At most it should get one or two sentences in Wikimedia, and even that is debatable. --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I find SPUI's analysis to be convincing. No special treatment for wikimedia. Quale 00:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per RickK. Also, VFD does not seem appropriate to be the first step in debating whether or not we should deleting the project. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concur with SPUI (for a change) and Quale. Megan1967 10:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this at least, IMO entire project should be deleted (wikipedia is not a memorial) Proto 11:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but Wikipeople might be. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- Abstain; iff the project stays, this page should stay. People who wish the project removed should take it to WP:RFC, or possibly, meta. Radiant_* 13:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the article. Archive the project. There's no more to write about this than there is about some random WikiProject. Just because it got wrongly moved to its own wiki doesn't make it encyclopedic. See also Meta:Babel for recent discussion. Angela. 17:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- keep please it is factual and npov Yuckfoo 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- An article about the fences in my back garden would be factual, verifiable, and NPOV. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- the odds are much greater that someone would search for information about this project than your garden Yuckfoo 21:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So your actual rationale (elicited after prodding and which turns out to be "factual and npov and in my estimation a likely thing that someone would search an encyclopaedia for") does involve a notability bar. I disagree with the height at which you place it. I don't think that this is something that people are going to enter directly into the "Go" box. (As I said earlier, if I did I would have voted Redirect.) For starters: It's not even the name of the project. According to the project's own main page it is called In Memoriam: September 11, 2001. According to Meta it is called 9-11 Memorial. (I'd have voted Redirect for either of those names, as well.) I'd like to see some evidence for any assertion that people are going to look up this name, though, given that it isn't even the name of the project. What makes you think that people are going to look for an article with this name? Uncle G 15:26, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- the odds are much greater that someone would search for information about this project than your garden Yuckfoo 21:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- An article about the fences in my back garden would be factual, verifiable, and NPOV. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not Meta. Alterego and RickK both miss the point, but in different ways. Alterego is wrong, in that deleting this article has nothing whatever to do with removing the WikiMedia project. RickK is wrong, in that it is Meta where one will find individual articles on all of the WikiMedia projects (both current and proposed). Demi, Quale, Megan1967, and Angela all hit the nail on the head. The same standards for inclusion in Wikipedia should apply to wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation as they do to wikis run by others. As RickK's shoot-self-in-the-foot argument demonstrates, Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for Wikispecies. A quick look at the recent changes verifies what Angela says on Meta:Babel about this wiki: It's nearly dead itself. And as pointed out above, there are few external references to it. If it were anyone else's wiki, we wouldn't have a separate article on it. We already have those "one or two sentences in Wikimedia" that SPUI mentions. If this were an article name that people would look for, I'd say Redirect, but I don't think that it is. Delete. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- Alterego is wrong, in that deleting this article has nothing whatever to do with removing the WikiMedia project. Actually, you're wrong. As you can clearly see from reading the discussions above, it's a good first step. Additionally, you're more wrong than that. Wikispecies is a redirect to Wikimedia, a perfect place on Wikipedia for including short blurbs about the foundation's various aspirations and projects in an encyclopedic context. Just to rub it in how wrong you are, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikinews all have dedicated articles. Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11's existence relies simply in the virtue of whether or not the project's existence is well founded. If the project should be archived, as Angela suggests, then the article should not exist. However, if it is indeed found to be a neutral and existence worthy project then the standard of having articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects at Wikipedia should also be applied to the 9/11 article. Hence my comment: I vote in favor of deleting (or archiving, in the form of only making the database dump available) the entire project. As the merit of the existence of one is reliant on the other, a decision must be made that considers them hand in hand. It clearly calls for a further vote. And irrespective of any of these points, you were clearly wrong before beginning with, because. --Alterego 22:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not any sort of "first step" at all. It has nothing whatever to do with the process of deleting the project, which you still incorrectly seem to think is predicated upon the existence of an encyclopaedia article and vice versa, despite Hedley's outright example to the contrary. I say again: Wikipedia is not Meta.. Moreover: The "standard of having articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects" should be the standard for having articles on anyone else's MediaWiki projects. Finally: Which part of "separate article" was unclear? Uncle G 03:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Some folks think they can get away with saying "no, that's not the case, and the reason it's not the case is that your thinking is incorrect". That's not reasoning, it's fallacy. --Alterego
- It's not any sort of "first step" at all. It has nothing whatever to do with the process of deleting the project, which you still incorrectly seem to think is predicated upon the existence of an encyclopaedia article and vice versa, despite Hedley's outright example to the contrary. I say again: Wikipedia is not Meta.. Moreover: The "standard of having articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects" should be the standard for having articles on anyone else's MediaWiki projects. Finally: Which part of "separate article" was unclear? Uncle G 03:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Alterego is wrong, in that deleting this article has nothing whatever to do with removing the WikiMedia project. Actually, you're wrong. As you can clearly see from reading the discussions above, it's a good first step. Additionally, you're more wrong than that. Wikispecies is a redirect to Wikimedia, a perfect place on Wikipedia for including short blurbs about the foundation's various aspirations and projects in an encyclopedic context. Just to rub it in how wrong you are, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikinews all have dedicated articles. Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11's existence relies simply in the virtue of whether or not the project's existence is well founded. If the project should be archived, as Angela suggests, then the article should not exist. However, if it is indeed found to be a neutral and existence worthy project then the standard of having articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects at Wikipedia should also be applied to the 9/11 article. Hence my comment: I vote in favor of deleting (or archiving, in the form of only making the database dump available) the entire project. As the merit of the existence of one is reliant on the other, a decision must be made that considers them hand in hand. It clearly calls for a further vote. And irrespective of any of these points, you were clearly wrong before beginning with, because. --Alterego 22:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Angela. JamesBurns 09:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable enough. Grue 11:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.