Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quote databases Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_quote_databases

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of quote databases

Contested PROD. Content herein fails WP:N and WP:RS. The only member that has ever had an article with any demonstrated notability (bash.org -- full disclosure, I own bash.org) was deleted a few years back as failing WP:N and WP:RS -- see full AFD here. No sense in having an indiscriminate list on topics that are all wholly non-notable; I don't see what criteria is being used to "discriminate" this list.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linkfarm (short and pretty but still a linkfarm). Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This comparison article could not be classified as a linkfarm as it contains no external links and no internal links that fit the "linkfarm" definition. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, so. Blaxthos. Just because you own Bash.org and that you created an article about it a while back (but got deleted) you think this should be deleted too? This is a list of QDB's including bash.org, I don't see the problem in it. The columns do need to be modified to be better. Eckstasy (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org -- a reading of that article's AfD will reveal I abstained (WP:COI) but urged the community to keep the article. The community, however, didn't agree. :) I would have also nominated this article if it was any other sort of List of my favorite websites article... Do you have any rationale for your Keep !vote? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org". I'd have to disagree with that. You nominated this article for deletion purely because your article for Bash.org was deleted. Eckstasy (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at my nomination history will show plenty of distaste for all sorts of List of... articles, so I'd venture to say empirical evidence doesn't support your assertion. :) A little good faith goes a long way... cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows plenty of nominations for articles relating to quote databases. It makes more sense that because your article was deleted; you have to nominate all others relating to quote databases. Eckstasy (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, because I have not nominated any such article since my participation in that AfD. You've presented no argument towards inclusion beyond an ad hominem logical fallacy. I had a feeling I should have resisted the bait to begin with, and you now have my regret for having taken it. Best of luck! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QDB.us, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IRCQuotes, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bash.org ..[...] Eckstasy (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those occurred year(s) before bash.org was deleted... cause must come before effect. ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point being, you still nominated QDB related articles. Eckstasy (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos has edited articles on a subject Blaxthos understands. No evidence of improper behaivour has been shown. Above suggestions show an extreme lack of good faith. Eckstasy should be shamed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, I don't need to explain myself any further; You obviously lack knowledge on the current subject and the history of Bash.org because you would know that this nomination was done in bad faith. Eckstasy (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I do lack that knowledge. Saying I'm lacking does not explain the history, does not justify your unsourced claims. If this "knowledge" and "history" exists enlighten us. (If I'm lacking that info the closing admin is likely to lack that info too. That admin is who decides. If you're making such claims they will not be taken seriously without evidence.) Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, I didn't know that such an article exists. the article has no integration to others. the project irc would look after this article, if the deletion-tag is removed! mabdul 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with Mabdul If it's kept, it can be moved to QDB or something of the sort and then expanded (a real article with more information about what a quote database is, and then the list at the bottom ?) Eckstasy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Featurelist: which im-protocols are allowed to submitted mabdul 09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Either way a version of this comparison table could still be included in an article about Online quote databases. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, falls afoul of WP:NOT in a couple cases, and a list in an encyclopedia needs to be encyclopedic- I don't see any sources for those management figures, or any of the assertions about anything else. Being a list doesn't magically exempt you from sourcing. --M^ask? 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a list article, not a standalone topic-article. The notability guideline does not limit the content of articles. WP:N states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." The nom clearly does not understand that list-type articles are handled differently than standalone articles.
Moreover, as pointed out above, the nom has a clear bias/COI when it comes to competing articles due to his involvement with bash.org. Rather than add say a {{refimprove}} template so someone could deal with any potential ref issues and address any WP:RS concerns he might have, and instead of following WP:BEFORE, he decided to just prod and AfD with a laundry list of guidelines [1] in hopes that something would stick. He also prodded this article after it had already been prodded once before, which is a violation of the WP:PROD policy. The first prod was on 2009-05-12 [2] [3] and the second prod was on 2009-06-22 [4] [5]
Contrary to the above comment, I don't see where this comparison list article "falls afoul of WP:NOT", and although the information included is very much verifiable, I do agree that some of the refs need improvement. That however is an editorial issue that should be addressed per WP:BEFORE and is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this is a list article. Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies (Wikipedia:Lists). This list is sourced entirely by the databases own sites. No independent reliable sources. This also looks to me like a Stand-alone lists. Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists None of these entrys have there own article. Remove everything with no article you are left with an empy list. No reason to keep an empty list. As it is it is simply an excuse to add external links to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it interesting that you left out the exception for WP:LSC when you quoted part of it above. "... The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." As such, stand-alone lists do not necessarily require each entry to have it's own article, this one being no exception. As stated above, quite a number of the articles that would otherwise be linked from this list were deleted for failing the Notability guideline and a list article in this case is entirely appropriate.
    Despite your continued assertions otherwise, this article contains no external links whatsoever.
    Given the nature of the information presented in the current form of the list article, the sources provided are adequate. No "exceptional claims" are made in this list article which would require 3rd party fact checked sources. That said however, we could always add a column for each site's Alexa page rank which would resolve any lingering doubt. List of social networking websites is a perfect example of where primary sources are acceptable and where the Alexa page rank is used in this sort of list article.
    Oddly enough, bash.org would in fact now meet WP:N as a number of books have been published in the years since the AfD that cover the site adequately enough to satisfy the Notability guideline.
    To reiterate, list articles are one type of article that is exempt from WP:N. They are not required to be "notable", and each entry does not have to have its own article or be "notable".
    --Tothwolf (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The exception you mention is list of something directly related to a obviously notable subject. There is no indication quote databases are notable. There is no indication of the notability of this list. There is no independent reliable sources. There is no independent sources. For the external links, look at "References" 1, 2,3,4, etc. Direct links to the databases home pages. Wikilawyer all you want, they are still external links. (Would you prefer it if I moved all these bad self references to external links to suit your quote?) And Lists are subject to Wikipedia's policies. Oddly enough if bash.org is now notable then this list does not qualify under the exception you mentioned. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you continue to have "interesting" ways of interpreting things that are written quite clearly and your arguments continue to contain false logic. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also quite apparent and it is not a valid reason for deletion. Considering how you've continued to twist and distort things so far, why would I expect any different from you now though? :)
        Having an article for bash.org would not change anything at all. I actually could cite published references for bash.org, but I don't see the point in doing so here as your argument above yet again contains more false logic.
        --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't like it is not my position. Which part of NO independent reliable sources is WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Freudian slip eh? [6] WP:DUCK --Tothwolf (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to the obvious and admitted coi. The existence of this article is benificial to bash.org as it supplys a friendly EL and comes of well on the feature list. The nomination of this list from someone who from my look clearly benefits from the lists existance shows a clear interest in advancing the aims of Wikipedia over simple personal gain. The over Proding was wrong. Bad editing, but maybe a mistake (AGF). That has never been a valid reason for Keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please point out the External Link for bash.org then. As anyone actually looking at the article can see, it contains no external links. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's funny, because I see one here. User makes a good point about the nominators motives, as well. --M^ask? 08:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe you are confusing External links and References. Wikipedia:External links#References and citation states: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section." There are no external links in this article whatsoever, and hence it cannot be considered a "linkfarm". The article does contain references, but those are not considered external links. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, i'm not confusing anything, im refusing to wikilawyer. The point you're side-stepping was not about linkfarming, but instead about the nominator, whom is accused of some sort of malicious COI, having a link to his own site on the page he nominated for deletion. Such an external link is, in fact, in the article. This is a long thread, so i understand how you can lose the point being debated. --M^ask? 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've not sidestepped anything nor have I lost track of this discussion. This was a bad faith nomination which has already been addressed above. User:Duffbeerforme continues to assert that the article is a linkfarm, yet it does not contain any external links, only references, which are not "external links". --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If I edit this article and move all the self referencing "references" to external links where they belong then there will be many external links. Shoul;d I do that for you? Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You can do as you like, however if I or anyone else consider it to be vandalism (which changing inline citations into external links would be) you can most assuredly expect someone to take issue with such edits and take prompt action. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to take another look at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with above poster Markusbradley (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - some obvious canvassing going on here... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

canvassing? I think not. there are categories and pages that link to this article. [7] Eckstasy (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you strike out your accusation of canvassing. Deletion sorting and Article alerts work quite well, thank you very much. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added an Alexa page rank column with references and removed the "Management" column that User:AKMask objected to. This should resolve any lingering reliable sources issues. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources given come anywhere close to being reliable. I'll go one further and say that there exist no reliable sources for this subject, which is a clear indication that the topic lacks encyclopedic notability; everything here is original research. Additionally, list articles are only appropriate when grouping groups of articles -- not a standalone list of non-notable members that otherwise fail to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyer much? Its pretty clear at this point what you are up to. Too bad bash.org keeps getting DDoS'd and bash.org.ru is getting better traffic rankings these days. I suggest you take your frustrations elsewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as I already quoted once above, WP:LSC states "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." Do you really want to open up a debate over this sort of thing again? Surely you've seen what has been happening in regards to this very issue over fict? --Tothwolf (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and for those interested in exactly why User:Blaxthos has been trying to get rid of all the "quote database" articles, including bash.org, see [8] [9] [10] --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, while each database may not be notable on the individual level, the concept of databases of quotes certainly meets WP:N (see WP:LSC). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would also suggest renaming to List of IRC quotes database to avoid confusion with pages like [11]. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N plainly requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Can you demonstrate even a single independent reliable source that would help demonstrate that the "concept" is inherently notable? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that "quote databases" (in the sense used in this list, as opposed to the sense of databases of price quotations for stocks or other financial instruments) meets the requirements of WP:N through treatment in reliable sources. If the underlying topic is not notable, a list of individual instances also fails the requirements for WP inclusion. Deor (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the concept of quote database is notable enough to merit listing them in an article; neither are the websites so listed individually notable and thus worth listing. Seems to fail the basic guidelines of WP:LIST on both of these counts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 30 June 2009 (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.