Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flagged revisions

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. The consensus here is to keep. If the article had been unreferenced with RS, then it would be a self-referential piece with no place in mainspace. However, as has been mentioned here, there are references to mainstream news agencies, and as such this is relevant for a mainspace article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions

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

This isn't really an encyclopedia article, but an excuse for the {{selfref}} and external link about the extension. If flagged revisions ever get implemented here, that aspect of Wikipedia will probably merit some coverage in Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia, but there aren't any independent sources on the extension, and there aren't likely to be any either. The single reference here is the usual speculation about what we're going to do in the future. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously, I had objected to the deletion of this page, on the grounds that a non-technical version of http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs should be created, and one that isnt specific to the English Wikipedia. But I just came across mw:Help:Extension:FlaggedRevs this morning, which is essentially what I wanted, and so I dont have any objection to deletion, though I dont think I can object to keeping it either without hearing more opinions. Would it be permissible to write an article here with the majority of the documentation about the software sourced to MediaWiki.org, and the information about outside opinions sourced to online newspapers? —Soap— 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources for which? The documentation, almost certainly not. There is news coverage, though, which by definition is a secondary source. —Soap— 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in every major news source (CNN, BBC, New York Times, ABC, etc) - they have all discussed this specific development. Over 100 Google News hits. Chzz ► 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if English Wikipedia ever turns on Flagged Revisions, that will be worth coverage in Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia, and those sources can be used to establish that it belongs there (which it will). I don't see any coverage of the actual extension in itself, though, only of the (so far, incorrect) assertion that English Wikipedia will be making a change to the way it handles editing. For an article on the actual extension, we would need coverage of the extension itself, not on proposed changes to Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MediaWiki. If I understand correctly (and I might not) this is a feature of that. No need for its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a feature of the MediaWiki software itself, but rather an extension. In its current form it is probably more suited to that article, although if it were expanded then it would surely contain information on the German Wikipedia's implementation and the English Wikipedia's proposed implementation. Reach Out to the Truth 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mediawiki unless the aforementioned sources are added and the article is expanded accordingly, then keep. fetchcomms☛ 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage that could be used to build this article. Most of it is about Wikipedia yeah, but it is the most popular wiki. Reach Out to the Truth 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to an appropriate section on one of the pages listed above. If nothing else, it's a very legitimate search term, so it needs to either have or point to reader-friendly content. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another exercise in WP:SELFREF. The article namespace is supposed to hold encyclopedic contents, not Wikipedia documentation. We have a ton of that though. Pcap ping 03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not documentation; it is (potentially) an article discussing a notable topic that has been widely covered by mainstream media. Chzz ► 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't see in-depth coverage in the media. Only passing mentions in the context of other articles about Wikipedia. Can you point out an article that covers FRs in-depth? The most in-depth piece I was able to find is this short story, in The Register, which is a publication of limited interest per WP:ORG. All the stories seem to date to Aug 2009, so WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here. Pcap ping 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The New York Times' "info" page on Wikipedia (undated) discusses Flagged Revisions in 2 sections, "An Edited Wikipedia?" and "Trusted Editors vs. Everyone Else". I can't vouch for NME as a source, but it has an article dated January 27, 2009: Wikipedia to moderate all updates. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking a step back, it is easy to see that this subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown by the sources currently in the article: [1], [2], and [3]. WP:SELFREF does not condemn us from writing articles that relate to Wikipedia, it tells us the manner in which we must go about it. If this article would be related to any other online community, there wouldn't be a question about: those sources are enough to establish notability. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage specific to this topic to make a viable article. Self-referencing in articles should be challenged, but this one appears to be a reasonable case to have. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extensive media coverage is not referring to the feature itself but to its' potential application to Wikipedia. I don't even need to look at the article itself to decide that its presence is a good thing. -- samj _in ^out 18:29, 13 March 2010 (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.