Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrators (Wikipedia)

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The result was WITHDRAWN. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators (Wikipedia)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. While there are sources for all of these articles, they are not notable separate and apart from Wikipedia, and therefore should not be forked off of Wikipedia. The items received attention in the context of Wikipedia, and, were these articles written about subsections/subprocesses of any other website, we would find their notability lacking. We should not treat Wikipedia differently than we do other websites. Initial filing of this AfD

Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project page and it's just (Wikipedia:) blastertalk! see 07:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia. The minutiae of Wikipedia does indeed get more coverage than most web sites, but that doesn't necessarily make this minutiae encyclopedic. Nobody (hopefully) would advocate a series of content forks from Flickr or Gmail that describe every minor aspect of those websites. New Gmail features probably get more coverage than some C-list celebrities do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa says [1] that the most popular sites are google.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, yahoo.com, baidu.com, wikipedia.org, qq.com and taobao.com (in that order). There are roughly 200 articles in each of Category:Google services, Category:Google, Category:Yahoo! and their subcategories. Category:Facebook has around 100. Category:YouTube has around 450. Category:Wikipedia has around 320. Category:Baidu and Category:Tencent Holdings (for QQ) each have 11; Category:Alibaba_Group has 5. So it seems that the most popular US-based Web sites each have between 100 and 450 related articles, and the most popular Chinese Web sites each have around 5 or 10.

Can we can dismiss the stories in the Atlantic, the Daily Mail, Wired, BBC News, and NBC News just because all are about the same event and all appeared in the same month?

If so, that still leaves three scholarly papers. Their titles, Modeling Wikipedia admin elections using multidimensional behavioral social networks, Taking up the mop: identifying future wikipedia administrators and Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: how wikipedia administrators mold public opinion, imply that they are largely about the administrators. Although two appear in the same publication, there is no overlap among their authors. One appeared in 2008 and the others in 2013.

The sources seem to meet WP:42. —rybec 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I started my comment, the nomination said "While well sourced and well written, the project's administrators really aren't notable separate and apart from Wikipedia itself, and so this shouldn't be forked from the main coverage of Wikipedia." and it was just for the one article. —rybec 13:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The main article about Wikipedia is 188K which, per WP:SIZE, is much too large and so should be divided into sub-topics per WP:SPLIT. How we divide the content is a matter of editorial discretion and, if the split isn't quite right, would be amended by merger not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wikipedia is a bit large, but it's not that dramatic. WP:SIZE is about readable prose, not raw document size. The readable prose is about 65K, which means that it probably should be split, but it's not yet mandatory. Wikipedia administrators could be easily integrated into that article without substantially increasing the size. I mean, there isn't all that much to say. I like the info from the scientific studies (it's interesting), but the rest is fluff that can be left behind. It wouldn't overwhelm the parent article. An article about Wikipedia's logo strikes me as silly trivia, but I'm willing to admit that it has enough trivial coverage to warrant a merge. WIR could be reduced to a single sentence: Some people think it's a waste of money[1], but others think it's pretty keen.[2] NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since it is explaining pretty well, I don't think it should be removed. Unless there is some similar page. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Administrators (Wikipedia). Per rybec's analysis, there exist multiple in-depth independent RS (and I would count the stories in Atlantic, the Daily Mail, Wired, BBC News, and NBC News as another RS for the purposes of notability) upon which to base this article so this topic passes WP:GNG notability thresholds. If a feature of a website is notable, there is no problem having an article on it, e.g., Facebook Graph Search. The article itself seems to have no major problems. A notable topic and no major article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A relevant recent AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed, which closed as delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discussed meets notability requirements, namely secondary sources; I am sure we can find space amongst our 4 million plus articles for this. --LT910001 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating all these in a single AfD was a bad idea. Some should probably be merged and some kept separate per GNG and WP:SUMMARY, but the set of articles listed here is too diverse for a single AfD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comment. Wikipedian in Residence, in particular. seems well supported by sources and it should certainly be kept. The different articles should not be discussed together. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that these needed AfDed separately. Those that are WP:GNG should be Kept and the others Merged unless WP:TOOLONG becomes a significant issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep secondary coverage seems significant enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of combined nomination and at least some of these being supported by significant coverage in secondary sources. (Cherry picking a la "keep x, delete y, redirect z, merge a into x, delete b only if x is kept" etc. just creates a mire for determination of consensus). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that it is useful, it answers a question that is not answered elsewhere on line, deletion is just picky navel gazing. Where it goes is irrelevant to the guy who makes the Google search. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, as those articles should have not been lumped together. Strong keep for administrators, the topic is very much notable (this group is subject to a number of academic studies). Some others I might have voted differently, but since this is a group nom, it's not an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 29 January 2014 (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.