Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folksonomy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Folksonomy

Well written article, but it is still non-notable blogger wankery devoid of real content. Just because some self-proclaimed, vain "online journalists" repeat a meme on their web-site in every post doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 193.77.153.149 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

• Keep. Has been extensively discussed in a graduate-level library science paper [1] and a Wired article [2], among other sources whose reputability is above that of a "self-proclaimed, vain, 'online journalist.'" 700,000+ hits [3] on Google. The "Examples" section should be either severely trimmed or removed, though; otherwise it verges into web directory territory. If the goal of the section is really just to illustrate examples of folksonomies in action, 2-3 examples should suffice. Chuck July 7, 2005 18:34 (UTC)
• Comment - original nominator. User:193.77.153.149, apparently did not complete VfD process, so I am adding it to today's page. No vote (yet). FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Oh, okay, the anon nominator added it to yesterday's log even though it was VfD'd today (according to the timestamp). Well, I've put it here and deleted it from the 6 July listing. FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful discussion of new topic in information theory, something Wikipedia is uniquely qualified to address in a timely way. betsythedevine 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Keep and prune example list. From my brief review of the Google results it looks like "folksonomy" has caught on. Besides, Jimbo has been sighted talking about it: [4]. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

• It's not quite him talking about it, though. :-) KissL 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Keep the term exists, and is popping up all over... who cares if bloggers created it, and what difference would that make in any case? I came to Wikipedia today specifically looking for this word because I kept seeing it and didn't know what it meant; I see no reason to delete a term because someone has a problem with the blogosphere and what emerges from it.

First edit by 71.128.137.140 - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC).

• Keep: a newly current term describing an interesting and specific phenomenon of the web, Wikipedia the ideal place to check and indeed develop its definition. Why on earth delete?

First edit by Ashtreex - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC).

• Keep: tagging is just taking off. While I'm not fond of the word "folksonomy" to describe tagging, more and more people do use it.

anonymous comment from User:63.150.49.66. —Stormie 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: this is useful stuff Sbwoodside 00:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: i am kind of astonished that someone would vote to destroy this article. it is a fascinating idea no matter who the 'wankers' are that overuse the word. imagine if the oxford english dictionary had failed to insert words that it considered 'used only by wankers'? i heard people talking about this word as an alternative to library of congress classification and the only reason i was able to find out wtf it meant, quickly, was because i looked it up on my old standby, wikipedia.

anonymous comment from User:70.185.250.195. —Stormie 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: While I hate neologisms like blogosphere and folksonomy, the concept is certainly relevant to a significant web population and should remain as an article. The list of examples is too messy, in my opinion (though I cleaned it up a bit). Nobi 10:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a useful page that givesa good into to a topic coming up in lots of settings including higher ed...and students love wikipedia so it is great to find the concept included here.
• Weak Keep per FreplySpang, though I'm disgusted by all this sockpuppetry. KissL 09:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: While this article needs editing, it describes a real phenomenon that is gathering significant momentum.
• Keep: Not the nicest neologism, with a potentially difficult international life, and lack of multilingual equivalents, but one that gives a name to an important alternative to traditional classification systems. David.orban 19:00 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: until now, the only people who have heard of this new term are people who actively depend on it daily, therefore other people outside of the realm of influence can't really apprieciate what it stands for or what it defines. please be in a habit of investigating a term before just impulsively disqualifying it.
• Stong Keep: Important topic; weak justification of ignoring it.Paul.Wicks
• Strong Keep: The term Folksonomy has risen quickly into the lime-light. The page may need some adjustment of content and some clarification but there should be an entry for Folksonomy within the Wikipedia ( if for no other reason than to prevent the Marketeers from taking it over)
• Strong Keep: This is a real and important phenomenon. I am citing it in an academic paper right now --Aaron Krowne 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sockpuppets have convinced me. Gamaliel 04:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: the term has been used and the concept employed so extensively by reputable and relevant sources such as (for example) the Guardian newpaper (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/global/whatisfz.html) that it cannot plausibly be dismissed merely because some people haven't heard of it or apply an ad hominem objection to some other, arguably less reputable sources having used the term or employed the concept also.
• Keep: supporting terms will be defined over time Rossmay
• Keep. I hadn't heard it before, but 387,000 google hits is enough for me. Shanes 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but send to heavy cleanup. Needs a fairly extensive rewrite or enhancement and possibly some trimming of the examples (they may need their own page). --TNLNYC 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a soap box, or a collection of neologisms, and this violates all three. →Raul654 01:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Term is used widely. Rrreese 01:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Summary - the voting is overwhelmingly in favour of "keep", and the article has improved considerably in the last seven days. I propose removing this from VFD in 72 hours, unless someone can provide a compelling reason to continue this debate.Manning 01:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, it's overwhelmingly keep because of the blatant sockpuppetry going on. →Raul654 01:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I respect your position Raul, but I'm personally satisfied that there is something of substance here. However I'm happy to leave it on VFD though - was just trying to clean some stuff up. I'll just keep watching and allow the discussion to continue. Manning 01:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if it is so much sockpuppery as it is just lots of different people coming here after minor publick attention. See here. Don't see anything wrong with that, though. Shanes 01:54, 15 July 2005 (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.