Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashcard Exchange

Flashcard Exchange

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Carlh (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to meet WP:WEB. There is no "historic significance" here. Many similar sites exist: none with Wikipedia pages. A mention that online flashcards and sites exist is already included in the main Flashcards page. That is enough. Carlh (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Historic significance" is not the barometer for inclusion. The notability guideline is.
Please explain why you contacted User:Onebravemonkey and User:LinguistAtLarge, neither of whom have been involved with this article. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is the guideline for inclusion of a website. "Notable and of historical significance" is a quote from the WP:WEB header. I believe the spirit of WP:WEB is not met in this case. You believe the opposite. Hopefully consensus will be reached here and we'll both live with the result. Carlh (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... some sort of explanation would be useful. one brave monkey 09:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, hold on. It was this, wasn't it? Both myself and Linguist !voted delete... have the other editors (those who !voted keep) been contacted? There is a fine line between notifying interested parties and canvassing, but I'm pretty sure which side of it you are at the moment... one brave monkey 09:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maybe you recall, almost all of the Keep voters were sockpuppets made solely to attempt to stop Crammage from being deleted. You can see warnings made by C.Fred on several talk pages (examples: User talk:76.14.82.5 User talk:Homeboyfrisco) and by yourself here User talk:Thomasjnewsome. Since the Crammage article was deleted I don't think any of them are ever coming back. I became involved in the Crammage AfD because User_talk:58.3.182.104 left a note on my talk page. But if I think back it was more appropriate as I had indeed reverted a spammy edit to the Supermemo page made by one of the Crammage sockpuppets. I'm no AfD expert. I did not mean to break any rules. I barely managed to make the AfD :). I usually participate when others take the lead. Here is "my side": I have a few interests on Wiki that I monitor every few months one is Flashcards, E-learning, and Spaced Repetition- a subject which unfortunately attracts a lot of adverts. I've participated from the side mostly (or via speedys) on Bettermemo, IFlipr, MemorizeIt, Mental Case, and StudyProf. Fought the good fight and lost on Winflash and Anki. I have nothing in particular against Flashcard Exchange and in this case I don't think Cunard is at all acting in bad faith or indeed has anything to do with the website. We just have an everyday disagreement over notability. My goal is to keep the E-learning/flashcard related articles relatively clean. I think they are ok now and part of the reason is that individual sites and programs are generally kept off. Of course I'm willing to live with the consensus. --Carlh (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. See this review from Education World and nontrivial coverage from TUAW, which is published by AOL. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]