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. --Coredesat 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable self-reference. I suggest moving it rewritten to the Wikipedia namespace if not exists there already. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given there has even been a vfd on the namespace article on the English Wikipedia, I think this is a 100% legitimate question. The CD was published in March 2006. I think the question is about notability viewed as a publication in its own right. Claim would be notable compared to other minor publications already established including because of (1) media attention (articles in Norwegan http://magasinet.telenor.no/default.asp?page=27&article=1325 , copies sold on India Ebay, distributed in South Africa through the Shuttleworth Foundation which was discussed here: http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid19238.aspx , part of a weekly newsquiz at a Hindu Business newspaper: [1], discussion on many UK educational websites: try http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNFA,RNFA:1970--2,RNFA:en&q=2006+wikipedia+cd ) (2) significance as the only CD of the English Wikipedia (3) 35,000 plus downloads (200M so not for the fainthearted), all freely copyable which represents a significant number of interested parties. There are many less notable publications with namespace articles. The edit history has been lost with transfers back and forth to Wikipedia Space. I put it in Namespace because I think on this basis it is a

• keep--BozMo talk 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability established beyond reproach by independent media coverage. Project aspects covered in project namespace, mitigating concern as to self-reference. -- Paleorthid 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Wikipedia. Shorten dramatically if necessary. Recury 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge or just delete As self-referential as possible, and there is no external notability given. I don't see any of the links given by BozMo as reliable, and I don't see anything in the article as criteria for keeping the page. -- Kicking222 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to appropriate article in Wikipedia namespace. SYSS Mouse 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The self-referential aspect of the whole thing is problematic. On the other hand, there has been a little bit of media attention and maybe enough for a small article. Maybe delete voters would be more comfortable with keeping if there were added references and if it did not feel so much like an article written as self-promotion by people involved in the project. The question we should ask is: would we be keeping this article if it was about a selection of Encarta articles somehow freely distributed by some NGO? I believe we would. But we also have to realize that we would delete the unreferenced details and the same should be done in this case. Pascal.Tesson 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was an article about Encarta, and there were multiple reliable sources discussing the selection, then yes, I'd probably !vote keep. But I don't see that here (ignoring the self-reference). -- Kicking222
  • I would find it helpful for my general education if some can point me at something explaining self-reference in the context of reliability versus in the context of notability. There is a bit of Catch 22 because (in the lost edit history) initially it didn't link to or discuss the project pages at all but we were told we needed reliable references. Also were told (see talk) that the page had to mention as yet unpublished WP projects to avoid NPOV (I didn't like this). I will have a go at removing self-reference anyway and put in a couple of review comments to see if it can be improved. --BozMo talk 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per SYSS Mouse. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providing an opinion, as requested here. I don't know if this already exists, but I would suggest creating a WP:space page about such distributions. There it will have development options that wouldn't exist if it was an articel, OR it may be developed as an articel free from the possibility of an AfD untill it can be merged back into articel space. Incidentally, as a new (2007) version is about to come out, it may be worth just consolidating 2006 and 2007 into a single articel covering all release of it. 68.39.174.238 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. --- RockMFR 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain yourself further? Why do you think this article should be kept while we redirect other self-referencial articles like Wikipedian? Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This Afd has nothing to do with Wikipedian. This publication is notable. --- RockMFR 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ehhm this is not true, as they are both self-references. This was originally moved from the Wikipedia namespace by BozMo. Please note that we remove many such articles that relate to Wikipedia from the mainspace, and this is not a different example. Please also note that higher notability of a Wikipedia-releated subject is still not a reason to move it to the mainspace; for instance, it is expected that the the term "Wikipedian" might also have a lot of notability established by Google hits and publications, yet still does not have its own mainspace article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Higher notability of a Wikipedia-related subject IS a reason to move it to the mainspace. Hence why we have Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia in popular culture, Reliability of Wikipedia, etc. The existence of the redirect at Wikipedian is not a valid reason to move/delete this article. --- RockMFR 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth mentioning that there seem to be over a hundred mainspace articles with "Wikipedia" in the title (I can't get the search syntax right to get the exact number). --BozMo talk 09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Became notable with the number of people who wanted the CD, bought it or downloaded it. Lincher 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paleorthid. FrummerThanThou 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very week keep. Marginal, but still notable. ^BlankVerse 09:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Think long term. If this page gets deleted and later we feel this is notable, we would need to add into the article that it was deleted becuase other sites would say that and we need to be unbaised--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 13:11, 12 December 2006 (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.