Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamwidth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was keep. - clear consensus to keep - on discovery of additional coverage in reliable externals the nominator also offered to withdraw the nomination . (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dreamwidth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article "appears" to have 24 sources, but only two of those are actually independent, reliable sources, and those two only discuss Dreamwidth very briefly. The rest of the sources are either from the company itself or from blogs/livejournal pages. As such, this site does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I make no comment on the quality of the article, but Dreamwidth is a fairly significant site, mostly for its connection to LJ and the exodus of users from LJ towards it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the quality of the site could be a lot better, and I can do my best to recruit more authors - but the article should remain, as Andy Dingley says. ~ tajasel (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on both of the above--we don't judge whether an article should be kept or not based on the quality of the subject (for example, we don't decide if a person is "good" when we measure whether or not to have a BLP on them). What we are measuring here is whether or not the site, Dreamwidth, has been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Currently, the article doesn't provide any evidence that they have, and I was unable to find any through my own searches. Do either of you have further sources that would demonstrate this site's notability? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, with all due respect, the same sort of deletionist BS that crippled WP's coverage of programming languages and is generally driving editors away from the site. It's a decent article, it has plentiful references, so just be a good chap and bugger off and go delete some vandalism and stop maligning decent, useful articles of public interest, will you? Liam Proven (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on both of the above--we don't judge whether an article should be kept or not based on the quality of the subject (for example, we don't decide if a person is "good" when we measure whether or not to have a BLP on them). What we are measuring here is whether or not the site, Dreamwidth, has been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Currently, the article doesn't provide any evidence that they have, and I was unable to find any through my own searches. Do either of you have further sources that would demonstrate this site's notability? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase. I don't think the sources (both the independent ones already listed and what can be found in Google news archive) are sufficient to demonstrate independent notability, but I think we should have some useful content that people can find when they search Wikipedia for Dreamwidth, and that is good enough at least for the basic facts of the service. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As stated in the article, Dreamwidth has been the subject of several presentations at prominent F/OSS conferences since they have one of the highest proportions of female developers of any open source project. Besides which, xkcd, which meets the notability guidelines itself, apparently considers Dreamwidth notable enough to include it on its map of online communities. RickScott (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, we should include that in the article. This discussion is talking about the article's sources, not its notability! (Although the Wikipedia definition of "notability" does depend a lot on its sources.) And for the record, I agree with you that this should be kept, so I'm going to go add that information to the article now. --TheSophera (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Went through a lot of the Google news archive search results. http://www.itworld.com/open-source/78643/how-attract-more-people-your-open-source-project is a reliable source with ample coverage of it within that article. Dream Focus 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If that itworld.com source is incorporated into the article, then I withdraw my nomination. I think that's sufficient for this to cross over from borderline to Wikipedia-Notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want something added to an article, you have to do it yourself. Articles kept based on evidence found that they are notable, not based on what is actually done to them. Dream Focus 02:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that itworld citation to the article - Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.