Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veropedia (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Veropedia}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Veropedia}})

Most of the references are self-refs to a defunct website or to blogs/press releases; other references are in trivial mentions in conjunction with the general wiki forking movement or to OR-like statistical surveys. It appears to violate all three prongs of WP:WEB by having only trivial coverage in the pressing, having no awards, and having no independent content distribution method from its creators. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as now-defunct site. Fails WP:WEB. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as no public interaction for nearly one year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.198 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• :The website being inactive is not a reason to delete the article. We have many articles on defunct websites: see :Category:Defunct websites. What matters is not whether a site is active, but whether it is notable. Robofish (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Are we looking at the same list of cites? First two I picked (the Toronto Star and the PC Pro refs) were in-depth articles specifically about this particular site that do not appear to be simple press releases, selfpub, or bloggish. There's WP:WEB Criterion 1 covered. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

:*I read both of those as falling the a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and Media re-prints of press releases exceptions given their timing and style. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

::I don't see any news articles later than a month or so after initial announcements. {{cite book|title=Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes|author=Mathieu O'Neil|year=2009}} mentions it. Clearly had some lasting worth besides flash-in-the-pan startup-that-went-nowhere-after-opening. I can't tell from the google-books excerpt what the context of the mention is, so I'm not sure whether it's just a quick entry in a long list vs a discussion that highlights key examples. It will take my library a few days to get me a copy of the book... DMacks (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Note to potential closing admins: if you think depth of content in this ref could sway closure from delete to keep, please consider relisting instead of closing...interlibrary loan is still taking a few days:( DMacks (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't have access to [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/infotoday/access/1428661061.html?dids=1428661061:1428661061:1428661061&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:FT:PAGE&type=current&date=Feb+2008&author=Mick+O%27Leary&pub=Information+Today&edition=&startpage=31&desc=Pedia+Proliferation this] which seems to be a two page article specifically on Veropedia and Citezendium (according to [http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=223723224&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine this abstract]) which could be significant coverage. The fact that the site is defunct means nothing according to policy. Deadlinks do not invalidate their original content, and a defunct website itself is no reason to delete per WP:NTEMP. I believe that the other sources clear the bar of notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep That the site is defunct (and likely remains so in future) doesn't mean anything to the notability of the site. We have reliable sources, and that's good enough to establish notability. -- Taku (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I stated 2 years ago at the original AFD, Delete (without prejudice against recreation when WP:NOT#NEWS surpassed. The basis was that there really wasn't much evidence it was more than a few brief mentions in the news. The first time round it wasn't clear, and it was highly topical, so benefit of the doubt was then appropriate. But after a start with some press notice, it has now clearly not achieved long term historic note, nor does it really meet the criteria of notability. It is not a defunct once-notable site. It is now clearly a defunct once-potentially-notable site, where we can now see that potential was never realized. If that ever changes, recreation is easy. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• keep Defunctness in no way is a reason to delete an article. There are multiple articles on the subject over 3 months so NOTNEWS claims are not valid. Meets primary notability criterion. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB, point 1, unfortunately. I voted 'weak keep' last time around but sadly, the site didn't keep up and has fallen into obscurity. Option to re-create if it comes back on-line and gains more media exposure - Allie ^❤ 02:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Or at least, it looks that way to me. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (borderline): My first thought was keep, but if this fails Wikpiedia's own guidelines then I think it has to be delete (esp since it had ties with Wikipedia). It's borderline though. A lot of the notoriety of Veropedia came from within Wikipedia itself, but of course Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, hence the lack of a proper criticism section I feel. The 'Evaluation' section is very non-standard, and a poor 'cv' in effect. It goes to show that without reliable sources you can't do much on Wikipedia whatever the subject is. Maybe there is a branch of Wikimedia where it would meet policy. As Veropedia wasn't a success before it ran into troubles, Wikipedia shouldn't be waiting to see if it finds its feet. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to History of Wikipedia#Notable forks and derivatives after cutting out all the waffle. It's worth making some kind of record of this site, even if it isn't notable enough for its own article. It did get some dedicated coverage when it launched.[http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/135639/wikipedia-spins-off-another-rival][http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/11/veropedia][http://www.thestar.com/News/article/273317] It was a bad idea, but we shouldn't sweep it under the carpet. Fences&Windows 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto Fences and windows that seems like a good idea for sourced information not worthy. Miami33139 (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think the coverage in the sources is sufficient to establish notability and being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as per Fences&Windows, otherwise Weak Delete. I've always been wary of the existance of this page since it's primarily struck me as a few editors pushing their project, the citations are heavily front-loaded, and it's certainly not going to get any more notable. I do think in the interests of transparency any editors who were involved in the site should make that clear with their votes. -Halo (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

: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.