[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10

Wed Oct 5 14:23:59 UTC 2005

"Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in 
message news:605709b90510031651m279f3052h91646a05ac8b8d40 at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> A discussion is now taking place on Wikipedia Votes for undeletion. An
> article about a developing games forum website was deleted a few months 
> ago
> on the grounds that it was "crystal ball gazing". Now the website is up 
> and
> running and someone asks for the article, with some 40 edits by to be
> deleted. People are sitting on VFU right now and seriously arguing that it
> should be kept deleted because "at the time, the VfD discussion was valid.
> That beggars belief.

Some choice quotes (** is me):

* Valid VfD - "organic growth"? (Nice phrase) Just because a site added some 
content doesn't automatically change its notability.
** actually the "organic growth" refers to the article, not to the 
subject...

* The fact that the site now might pass AfD does not invalidate the previous 
AfD...If an identical article were re-created it could validly be speedied. 
If a new and substantially different article were to be written about this 
topic, it could not be deleted without another AfD, and we can't prevent and 
article being written for the reason given above. (Although I wish with all 
my heart we could.)

* valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new article.
**This ignoring the already-established problem that the article has been 
protected on a blank because of vandalism...

* Keep Deleted. I thought I had already voted on this one.

One interesting argument on the original VFD was that no article about a 
website can be verified through a link to the website itself. The specific 
datum quoted was "number of users". One would be intrigued as to how many 
websites it would be possible to determine the number of users through any 
source **other** than the website itself? One would also be intrigued as to 
how many websites have their existence verified through peer-reviewed 
published papers as suggested in the same discussion...
-- 
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]] 