Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki rabbit hole

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki rabbit hole

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Certainly doesn't look to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Delete or merge to Wikipedia#Readership. SD0001 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into browsing. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. From WP:N, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... It meets ... the general notability guideline". This topic meets the WP:GNG by itself being the subject of multiple reliable sources. If this content were merged into an existing Wikipedia article then it would be shortened as being WP:UNDUE, and then when shortened that would trigger the cyclical justification of splitting it into its own article again. There is too much content here and too many sources cited to merge this content anywhere else. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying 8 disconnected sentences (8 including the lame ones like "Some people go to Wikipedia for the fun of seeking a rabbit hole", "Exploring the rabbit hole can be part of wikiracing.") is "too much content"?

Such rabbit holes look to be notable only in the context of Wikipedia (not for wikis in general). The section Wikipeda#Cultural impact (or Wikipeda#Readership within that) are the most suitable places to move this content to. SD0001 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: If this content is merged into Wikipedia or wherever else then next someone would say that 8 sentences are WP:UNDUE, then someone would cut the 8 sentences + citations to 1. I would agree with that - 8 sentences and potential expansion of this is too much for the general article on Wikipedia. At the time of cutting it to 1 then that triggers justification for splitting the topic into its own article. The topic meets WP:GNG so it merits an article. If the objection is saying Wiki versus Wikipedia then this article could be renamed to "Wikipedia rabbit hole". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 12:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of several RS, plenty of room to expand (as this is not necessarily specific to Wikipedia, it can also be more wikis in general, although the article does not reflect that right now), and I've seen many mentions of this online on things that would be considered non-RS (but confirm that it is a well-known thing). LittlePuppers (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources, such as The Atlantic and Washington Post, which signficantly cover this topic. Meets WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:GNG and has several reliable sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an encyclopedic information. And it passes GNG too. Dial911 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2018 (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.