Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/SydLexia.com


 * 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. — MosheZadka 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

SydLexia.com

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (4 delete, 2 keeps - one from originator (who has a handful of the VfDed article and vote edits, and one from a user whose only edit was the vote, both keeps discounted as users with too few edits) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete : Seems to be little more than a rather crude vanity page, and a bit spammy as well. ~ Achilles † 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity (web sites are almost never notable) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A group of site fans got together and compiled some of our favorite quotes from this site, which I have posted. After checking the Vanity rules and the What Wikiquote is Not pages, I have found that this particular WQ page falls under neither category. Therefore I am voting to keep, and furthermore propose that this vote is erroneous. Valdronius 06:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In general, fan compilations are fine: as long as the original is notable. You have not commented on the notability of the site itself. I strongly suggest giving some evidence regarding such notability, or else it is unlikely the page will be kept. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried looking through the giudelines for what constitutes notability, but as there is quite a bit of text, I can't seem to find it. So please allow me to ad lib. SydLexia.com is a review site of pop culture from 1980-1995. Topics discussed include Television, Movies, Video Games, Music, and Toys. It has garnered a fair bit of popularity on the web, and its current alexa rating is sitting somewhere near 65,000. Not too shabby IMO. Basically, its a funny site, and a great read for anyone who spent any time growing up in the aforementioned time period. So, if there's anything else that would help contribute to its notability, I'll be more than happy to bloviate some more. Valdronius 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your questions and helpfulness. The general guideline is "if we don't have a WQ policy, we use WP policy if applicable". The relevant wikipedia (draft!) policy is at w:Wikipedia:Websites, which would be helpful (sorry for not making it more obvious earlier!). Also, please note that even if a web site is notable, comments of random forum members are still not notable: you would do well to edit the quotation page to have URLs marking each quotation for both verifiability and to be sure who the quotation is attributed to. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks again for your patience with this particualr WQ newbie.
 * Comment: I've looked at the site's about page. If this article is kept at all, it should be a quote page for "Syd Lexia", the (pseudo-?)nym of the site's writer. However, I do think that not sufficient evidence has been produced for the person's notability: a site with Alexa rank of 65K is far from the guidelines presented in the draft mentioned above (it talks about 10K). Being funny and a great read is not relevant to notability: being published or otherwise "famous" is. Has the site (or the man behind it) been cited in any academic reviews of culture? Any newspapers? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep : Seems to be within the guidelines. Since WP all but begs users to create companion WQ entries for accepted articles, I don't see a problem regardless of notability. ~ FloydDoorz (Talk) 09:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, probably, that w:User:Floyddoorz is the only editor in the page's history, with the exception of an application of an experimental deletion procedure and its reversion by an admin: see wp history. Usually a wikipedia article implies enough notability: however, this stub article has only one editor and has not been nominated for AfD, and so there is no relevant notability discussion. Also, as of now, the user above has no edits except for his vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page doesn't appear to be a collection of anyone notable, but rather a string of quotes from a perhaps notable site. Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough to be included here. UDScott 12:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've created an AFD entry for the corresponding Wikipedia article in order to solicit opinions on its notability from the vastly larger audience there. Though we don't have to follow their ultimate decision, I think this will help inform our debate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP decided to delete this article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fascinating issue... The w:Wikipedia:Websites page is interesting, and its talk page links - I didn't know the bash.org website mentioned there, it's great... Anyway, I'm not too sure about the argument that "Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough", because the same would also apply to Slashdot.org. Or perhaps we want to delete the slashdot.org wq page too? Note that there's a difference between a page that should be deleted on principle, and a page that needs a major rewrite because it's a mess. And as to whether this SydLexia website itself is notable enough, I guess it depends on whether we want to use the same guidelines as wikipedia, or stricter ones, or kinder ones... iddo999 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I pretty much hate the slashdot page. It is pure crap :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could use slashdot as a precedent for a page that is notable enough, suitable for wikipedia, but unsuitable for wikiquote? Or alternatively, require that the wq slashdot page contain only quotes by notable people? Or keep using the de facto option, meaning that if the subject itself is notable enough, then quotes by unnotable people related to it are ok? A lot of the info in the Slashdot subculture page may be of debatable importance, but if people seem to be interested in it, then fine... iddo999 15:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the very concept of "precedent" is wrong here. Slashdot was never up for VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlike SydLexia.com, which is debatable, Slashdot.com is obviously WP-worthy, because it's an extremely well-known website that has received considerable attention from the mainstream press. I don't think we have any clear rules about website quote articles, but Slashdot.org is a perfect example of why we need them. Unnotable people shouldn't be able to get around the notability policy just because they know how to post to a well-known site that'll accept anyone's commentary. By that rule, any "interesting" thing we post on Wikiquote should be fair game for a "Wikiquote" quote article. Come to think of it, maybe I'll start it and add my oh-so-clever personal quotes from my user page. (I hope everyone realizes I'm just kidding.) I repeat what I've said elsewhere, "interesting" is not a sufficient qualification for Wikiquote inclusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The general question, related not only to a wikiquote websites policy, is whether the author of a quote must always be notable himself, or whether we may include quotes where the quote itself is defined as notable under some criteria, even though it's agreed that its author isn't notable. If the author must always be notable (except for quotes in user pages), then e.g. slashdot.org is beyond repair in it's current form, and probably should be deleted too. iddo999 21:04, 28 November 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.