Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in pop culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was keep, and the Wikimedia article merged into the Wikipedia one, as all the references are to Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a rather gratuitous self-reference self-promotion. How many other "websites in popular culture" articles do we have? We don't even have Google in popular culture. I'm not saying this should be purged entirely, though: just migrated to the project space. Pharos 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references carefully. That an article is about Wikipedia does not automatically make it a self-referential article. A self-referential article is, in essence, an article that mentions itself or that makes no sense elsewhere than in Wikipedia itself. These articles are, in contrast, simply articles about Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. They are breakout articles, broken out from a section in Wikipedia. The concerns with such articles that apply at AFD are whether they constitute original research and are verifiable. The existence of similar breakout articles for other topics is a function of how much secondary source material there is on those subjects to work from, and thus whether breakout articles are required, and has no real bearing upon whether these articles should exist. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Uncle G 17:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that this article "makes no sense elsewhere than in Wikipedia itself". This is non-notable Wikipedia cruft– how can we complain about garage bands if we let this stuff in? You can call it a "breakout article", but it is clear that such a topic is just unworthy of iinclusion in any encyclopedia. Perhaps a line or two could be merged back to the Wikipedia article, but that's about it.--Pharos 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Again, I ask you to please read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references carefully. You are not doing so. This article makes sense elsewhere that in Wikipedia itself. One can demonstrate this quite easily by reading it here and seeing that it still makes sense. The article is not self-referential. You do not understand what a self-reference actually is. Please read the explanation of what self-references are carefully. Uncle G 11:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly do understand what self-referentiality is. I've never argued that the article is written in a linguistically self-refential manner ("this Wikipedia article" etc.); that would be something that could easily be repaired, and would not warrant an AfD. The problem is that the whole topic is Wikipedian vanity of the highest order, a caricature of what is commonly called "self reference" here, something there has been a longstanding policy against (though, true, it is not detailed at WP:ASR): the gratuitous mention of everyone's favorite internet encyclopedia.--Pharos 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never argued that the article is written in a linguistically self-refential manner — You have argued exactly that. From the top of this very discussion: "This is all a rather gratuitous self-reference.". Uncle G 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Geez, please give me a break for linking to the wrong policy page, though I explained exactly what I meant several posts ago. WP:VANITY.--Pharos 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never argued that the article is written in a linguistically self-refential manner — You have argued exactly that. From the top of this very discussion: "This is all a rather gratuitous self-reference.". Uncle G 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly do understand what self-referentiality is. I've never argued that the article is written in a linguistically self-refential manner ("this Wikipedia article" etc.); that would be something that could easily be repaired, and would not warrant an AfD. The problem is that the whole topic is Wikipedian vanity of the highest order, a caricature of what is commonly called "self reference" here, something there has been a longstanding policy against (though, true, it is not detailed at WP:ASR): the gratuitous mention of everyone's favorite internet encyclopedia.--Pharos 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Again, I ask you to please read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references carefully. You are not doing so. This article makes sense elsewhere that in Wikipedia itself. One can demonstrate this quite easily by reading it here and seeing that it still makes sense. The article is not self-referential. You do not understand what a self-reference actually is. Please read the explanation of what self-references are carefully. Uncle G 11:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that this article "makes no sense elsewhere than in Wikipedia itself". This is non-notable Wikipedia cruft– how can we complain about garage bands if we let this stuff in? You can call it a "breakout article", but it is clear that such a topic is just unworthy of iinclusion in any encyclopedia. Perhaps a line or two could be merged back to the Wikipedia article, but that's about it.--Pharos 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:VANITY. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikimedia in popular culture since it is about Wikipedia in pop culture, not Wikimedia, and the difference between pop culture and popular culture is too narrow to be comprehensible from the article titles. Then move Wikipedia in pop culture into the Wikipedia: namespace at somewhere like Wikipedia:Wikipedia in pop culture. I can understand wanting to keep track of that sort of thing but not in the main encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 07:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Not sufficiently noteworthy or expansive subject matter. Yahoo! is a much more noteworthy website than Wikipedia (Alex rank #1), and much more ingrained in popular culture, yet we have 10 times as many Wikimedia-related articles as Yahoo!-related ones. The problem here is not self-referentiality so much as it is systemic bias in coverage, which we should combat, not encourage. If users want to maintain a list of references to Wikipedia in popular culture, they should do so in the Wikipedia: namespace, not the article namespace. -Silence 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, merge into one. Wikipedia is a gigantic site. It's one of the largest in the world. It's also unique in the way it works. Thus, it is sometimes seen in the news, which is rare for any website, and actually parodized on many occasions. This is a fact. There is more than enough information to make an article about this, and there is absolutely no question about the notability of the phenomenon. I feel that saying delete in this case is based on the assumption that one needs to not prioritize Wikipedia itself in the making of articles; don't forget about the fact that Wikipedia is an extremely important website, in daily reach and traffic as well, and that it's noteworthy enough to write about! Same goes for the jokes and parodies that have been made about it; the fact that they have means that there is a reason to document it. Please don't delete this. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and merge. Sarge Baldy 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is no WP:ASR problem here. Obviously, the articles need merging, but I'm not endorsing a merge outcome because I don't like forcing merges through AfD. Mangojuicetalk 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the juice of Mango. This is properly cited and it really is avoiding self reference. The real issue with WP:ASR would be a crossname space direction. Yanksox 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge. Penelope D 03:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge and if something wrong happens, then separate it if it must be done. 24.188.203.181 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia in pop culture, although it would help to organize it a bit. Then there's the possibility of merging it into Wikipedia#Wikipedia in pop culture, which already exists, mind you. Extravagance 19:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge, per above. - CNichols 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge into one or the other Jam01 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge. Although this discussion is in severe danger of disappearing up its own fundament. David | Talk 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge, per above -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 12:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is part of popular culture now. :P--KrossTalk 16:23, 6 July 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.