Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flickr
Flickr was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.
Non-notable website, even if the silly content is changed. Mark1 05:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems not-notable and the language does not even make it sound like a real wikified style article. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 05:53, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Slowking Man 07:06, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)- Keep it, in light of improvement to the article. --Slowking Man 06:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an awful article but Flickr is notable enough. Did Markalexander100 even look into it? I mean, I know Flickr because a lot of blogs carry links to it, but it seems to have been noted.Dr Zen 09:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is that once you subtract all the parts of the article that are unverifiable opinion what's left is a category 6 substub, where anyone searching for it would have to already know as much or more as the stub could tell them. I know that proposal didn't pass, but the logic is still sound. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As you note, Antaeus, the proposal did not pass, which means the "logic" it was based on did not convince. Why don't you people ever think to improve the articles you think are deficient? Doesn't a deficient article cry out for you to put them right rather than just rip them down as fast as you can?Dr Zen 23:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The proposal did not pass, which means that the proposal didn't pass. VfD regularly bears witness to the fact that a vote one way or the other is no proof that the logic was sufficient or deficient. As for deficient articles, I have improved plenty in my time, as you might know if you looked into it instead of dismissing those you disagree with a pretentious "you people". A category 6 substub, however, is a substub so thin that anyone searching for it would already have to know as much or more about it than the "article" provides. Which, if you think about it -- I would commend the practice to you -- means that we do not need to save the substub; anyone willing and capable of writing at least a decent stub on the subject can start just as easily from nothing as from the substub. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "Why don't you people ever think to improve the articles you think are deficient?" Who are "you people?" Don't you think to improve the article? I would be happy to change mine, if you were to stop saying things like "you people" and accusing your fellow editors of liking to "rip them down" and began, instead, practicing your sermon. Geogre 06:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: It sure seems like it has been noted, but that, alas, doesn't mean notable for the wide community. It's a fine line, but my personal reluctance is based on the ad-heavy and flurry of photo management sites. Only a serious insider knows the good from the bad, the leaders from the followers, the Xerox from the IBM, the Amazon.com from the BooksOnline.com. The editor behind this article wrote a fan/ad. My vote is on this article, since I can't make a rational judgment on the field at large and don't want us to violate the no-advertising rule. Geogre 16:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Mdchachi|Talk 18:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Send to cleanupKeep and tell me what to do with all the people on VFD who's internet experience outside of WP stops at MSNBC.com. And BTW: Wikipedia:Importance. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:07, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)- I've no idea, Keith. Here's Geogre saying that even the very wide notability this system has achieved is not "notability". What is this magic standard that's in use here? It's quite simply that Geogre himself has not heard of it, so it must go. He accepts he can't make a "rational judgment" but here he is, judging away!Dr Zen 23:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Wonderful attempt at a personal attack. Full marks for effort. However, what I said was that this article gave no indications. However, since it's your love in life, then you can do one of two things: you can improve the article, make it show notability. offer citations and external links, or you can attempt to belittle anyone who only reads the article to assess its claims. You seem to have chosen the easy path. That's too bad, and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Geogre 01:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Note that the personal attack would have been much better if the contents of the article still weren't, and let's quote for everyone, since you don't appear to care how long VfD gets (below):
"Flickr is a photo management website.
The website is currently running in beta test as of November 2004.
The site is a project from Ludicorp (http://www.ludicorp.com/), a Canadian-based company founded in 2002. Their goal is to kick ass.
Most of its users think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and many of them actively contribute to its development in the Forums. (http://www.flickr.com/forums/)
..this is a work in progress because I'm way too damn tired to get anything else written."
- Now, doctor, please explain how anyone can tell that the website is super major so big that anyone must be an idiot for not knowing it, given that content. Or is it just that we all have to have the same interests in order to read articles? I thought we answered questions, not forced readers to go to Google to find answers. Geogre 01:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't care for your tone. It's extremely uncivil. We disagree but there is no call for you to get shitty about it. Second, just because you are taking it personally does not mean there has been any personal attack. Third, I am not a doctor, nor do I represent myself as one. Fourth, I have not said you should share my interests or anyone else's to read articles. Yes, this article is not particularly informative for you, and should be cleaned up. However, it will not be possible to clean it up if you delete it because you do not know anything about it. You will have made impossible your own enlightenment in this subject, and as a consquence, anyone else's. Why not encourage the building up of articles you do not think have sufficient content? Why not write to the initiating editor and ask him/her to add more? I note that it was in any case a "work in progress". Wikipedia has many, and it's specifically encouraged. You could have outlined in the article where you think work is needed. That would have been constructive. Now, I asked you what standard you had for deciding notability, and you have been clear that your standard is, tout court, your own reading of the article. The article itself must claim its own notability! Why then is there so much in the relevant policies about verifiability? That seems odd when the correct standard is simply a reading of the article itself and your own, subjective judgment from there. In any case, I supplied a link to a list of references that show notability. Did you at least click on that link and evaluate the sources noted there?Dr Zen 02:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The article is not informative for anyone, Bob. If you want me to change my vote, or if you want anyone to change a vote, get to work, stop whining, stop theorizing that everyone is against you, and start editing. I certainly won't be lectured about "contributing" by someone who can't be bothered to even put his principles into action by fixing a dreadful throw-away. Nor will I be lectured on civility by someone whose first comment was a personal address, by name, and an accusation of being an incompetent voter, and whose follow up was the use of profanity. Again, Bob, if you want it kept: get to work. Finally, with two featured articles, I can't really fit into your stereotype of the "deletionist." I write articles. Further, having broken through, here, with an explicit invocation and insult, for you to now toss your cloak and demand that no more comment be made is absurd. Finally, I think we are building a fantastic consensus here: the consensus is that you vote without working and insult without thinking. That's progress. Geogre 05:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think people who frequent VFD are not merely readers, but content reviewers, and there should at least be the effort done to do minor research on a topic that one does not know about before passing summary judgement on it. This could include, yes, entering the word "Flickr" on google, and perhaps also going to the site from there. Or else, abstain. I agree that the article needs work, but I guess I felt a bit compelled to counteract your delete vote since it was based on your admitted lack of knowledge. I fundamentally disagree with value judgements made with lack of knowledge. (It's also possible that User:Jscott's recent essay attacking VfD is ringing in my ears today.) I apologize for the snarky remark as you feel it applies to you, though I still stand by this fundamental point. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 01:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Was I responding to you? I thought I was responding to Dr. Zen. However, while we're at it, let's assume that every VfD voter is supposed to be researching a topic and not reading an article. I disagree with this. If lazy authors can't be bothered to write up an actual article, they shouldn't be surprised to see it deleted. However, let's say that VfD is actually Clean Up in disguise, that what we do here is not decide upon whether an article is worth keeping, but whether a topic could, under best circumstances, with entirely different content, possibly be worthwhile. Now, if that's so, then we need have no deliberative process at all. Every possible combination of words can, potentially, mean something to someone. Further, though, my criticism remains. If you are sure of the worth of this, then fix it. Fix it, or just quietly say that it can be fixed, but do not launch into taunts or vote balancing. Your vote doesn't matter: your efforts do. This article, as it remains! should not be kept. It fails every criterion of the deletion guidelines. Until that changes, a peevish "countering" of votes is misguided and disruptive. Don't negate my vote: give me a reason to change it. Geogre 02:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I note that again another voter has responded with an accusation that I am ill-informed and still hasn't fixed the article. I don't care about the vote. I care about our making an online encyclopedia. If you're experts, fix it! Geogre 02:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you're responding to me rather than making a general argument aimed at creating a consensus, you might do so on my talk page. Otherwise, Keith is not to know that his comments are not welcome until you uncivilly tell him so. You have, I believe, Geogre, given a very good argument for placing this article on cleanup, or for cleaning it up yourself, but none at all for deleting it. I don't have to personally fix all the articles I think need keeping but need fixing. Such is the beauty of a wiki -- I know we'll all do it together.Dr Zen 03:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "Together?" Only if we agree with you. Otherwise, the insults will fly. How many administrators have you already figured are bad people? On your user page you list two. If you wish to do some work, do some. Again: concentrate on changing my vote rather than arguing it. You are looking terrible and sounding worse. Since you claim personal expertise on this subject, let the change begin with you. Start writing, please. Geogre 05:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Now, doctor, please explain how anyone can tell that the website is super major so big that anyone must be an idiot for not knowing it, given that content. Or is it just that we all have to have the same interests in order to read articles? I thought we answered questions, not forced readers to go to Google to find answers. Geogre 01:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Until he's no longer "too damn tired to get anything else written" and make it look remotely like an encylopedia entry. Ashlux 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, happily one of the points of a wiki would be that regardless of how tired the initial author is someone else can come along and fix it up. Is in need of cleanup as well. ?Florescentbulb 04:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: promo for an unremarkable website. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Since I have worked in the industry and am aware and have tried most Canadian, American and Australian offerings, I can tell you that flickr is not notable at all, at least not yet. The Steve 12:32, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep First, the article has been considerably improved since it was first listed--I would hope that those who voted delete early on might take another look. Second, for those arguing non-notability, this is a textbook case of how notability is so terribly fraught with subjectivity as to be entirely useless as a criteria for deletion. Ranks 8,345 on Alexa, which is not great, but we have entries on Wikipedia for sites with lower rankings. I don't use the service personally, except as some blogs I read occasionally link to photos there. Through that I have noticed it with some frequency (and I really am only an occasional blog-reader, but this has still registered on my radar). older≠wiser 16:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I've put up instead of shutting up and tried to improve this article. I fear though that now it sounds like marketing text, even though my contributions were all original. If those who have determined that this site is non-notable or unremarkable among other sites have anything to balance it out, it would be appreciated. (Create, not destroy!) I am honestly not aware that there is a glut of image sites that provide the features and potential for community that the topic site does. I have to say, I guess I thought Wikipedia was for growth, not destruction as a result of ignorance. They say it's human nature for people to destroy that which they do not understand. I don't have to approve of it. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:32, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: You're quoting stuff from DrZen's user page? How very odd. What makes you think that anyone here doesn't understand? Isn't that accusation what started all of this -- attributing motives to people, no matter what they say? For my part, I think the copy has gone from ridiculus to ridiculus mus and from joke to ad, leading us back to Wikipedia not being a web guide. No change of vote. Geogre 20:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "My vote is on this article, since I can't make a rational judgment on the field at large". I'm sorry, you defend article deletion based on article content when you have no topical familiarity, and I disagree with that philosophy, and what I say to defend my position is merely that. I've never been to Dr Zen's user page (well, up until just now). I've complained about the tendency to destroy rather than create before now. Dr Zen sharing that philosophy is a coincidence. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 20:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- My vote is on the article, as it is the duty of the article to inform the readers. Given an emergent commercial field, there are many claims. An article that says "Screw it, I'm too lazy to type" is hardly believable. I only have to be a user of information to judge that. Did the article establish notability? No. Did it discuss the topic? No. Did it locate the thing in a context? No. Therefore, what encyclopedic qualities did it have? You, on the other hand, seem to say that we should be an enthusiast's place. "Only if you're a big fan of the field should you venture an opinion" is a sure way to get to Slashdot or Everything2. We don't serve the already-informed information they already possess. We attempt to make an encyclopedia. It's surprising merely that you choose to "complain" in exactly the same motto that he does. Curious, in fact, that the very same words would occur. Perhaps the source isn't him. Perhaps the source is, oh, a page on Meta telling everyone to go vote on various VfD listings. Perhaps not. I expect, of course, that if you ever vote "keep" on something, you will do so because you are intimately familiar with the field, and therefore I expect that you will expend effort to improve every listed article? I hope so. We need better articles. Geogre 21:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, my introduction to the phenomenon started here. Honestly, the words "create" and "destroy" are pretty common, not to mention used in many one-liners. ("It is harder to create than destroy", for example.) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]]
- I resent the insinuations that Geogre is throwing around. The idea of Wikipedia is to seek agreement. When you see it, you see collusion! I've never meet Keith before and I don't read "meta" pages. My understanding of the policy is that articles must have the *potential* to become encyclopaedic, not spring fully formed from their initiating editor. Why on earth would we be using a wiki if the idea was simply to submit articles for peer review and, presumably, a bit of tinkering?Dr Zen 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My vote is on the article, as it is the duty of the article to inform the readers. Given an emergent commercial field, there are many claims. An article that says "Screw it, I'm too lazy to type" is hardly believable. I only have to be a user of information to judge that. Did the article establish notability? No. Did it discuss the topic? No. Did it locate the thing in a context? No. Therefore, what encyclopedic qualities did it have? You, on the other hand, seem to say that we should be an enthusiast's place. "Only if you're a big fan of the field should you venture an opinion" is a sure way to get to Slashdot or Everything2. We don't serve the already-informed information they already possess. We attempt to make an encyclopedia. It's surprising merely that you choose to "complain" in exactly the same motto that he does. Curious, in fact, that the very same words would occur. Perhaps the source isn't him. Perhaps the source is, oh, a page on Meta telling everyone to go vote on various VfD listings. Perhaps not. I expect, of course, that if you ever vote "keep" on something, you will do so because you are intimately familiar with the field, and therefore I expect that you will expend effort to improve every listed article? I hope so. We need better articles. Geogre 21:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a notable site and service. And, now, it's got a decent article (thanks, KeithTyler). ~leif ☺ HELO 22:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Alexa traffic rank is 8,345 and the site appears to be notable. --Goobergunch 00:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough. Rho 02:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Article looks good now, thanks to the people who bothered to improve it. Nice to see that worthy topics can be contributed to after all, not that that surprised most of us. Factitious 03:56, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. Agree with Factitious. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 17:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems OK, if the article is not. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, noteworthy. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.