Talk:Lostpedia/Archive 1

message: I would like to know why this article isn't allowed to be created. There are articles for Memory Alpha, with the justification that Star Trek writers (of which there are none anymore) use Memory Alpha. The creators of LOST used Wikipedia as part of its online alternative reality game over the summer, and it was actually referenced in one of the podcasts related to the show created by the writers, the DJ Dan podcast, where a fictional character within the world of LOST says that he is incredulous to the idea that Lostpedia.com believe he is fictional. The character DJ Dan being played by one of the writers of LOST during Season 2 (Javier Marxauch). The justification of Memory Alpha being in the top 25,000 sites as considered by Alexa.com is a falicy as it has been rejected by Wikipedia as a source of credibility. Alexa.com's ranking for Memory Alpha also includes the whole of Wikia.com not just Memory Alpha.
Furthermore the user that requested the speedy deletion also contributes to the Memory Alpha article, and is a known spammer of the Lostpedia site.
I do not understand why Lostpedia is not deemed worthy to have its own article but Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia can have their own articles. I don't believe it is an issue of bias, as Jimmy Wales uses Lostpedia as well as Wikia.com's Lost Wiki. --90.192.92.77 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should i compare your Lostpedia to Memory Alpha? You'll also find much more notable wikis then "Lostpedia" like BattlestarWiki do not get an article here either. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the traffic of lostpedia compared to the "more notable" Battlestar wiki ;)   Lostpedia receives much more traffic than the Battlestar wiki dowes.  The Battlestar wiki was started a year earlier than Lostpedia.  --Kevincroy 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT a web directory.  Guy 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha.. what vanity, you posted a blog believing your selfs to be published... thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course not, there all blogs and the scifi one does not even work. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you care to cite this? You contionously repeat your selves saying they endorse you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability/existence justification

message: Unfortunately individuals seem to delete this page immediately after its made, even when they are pleaded with to actually have discussion first. Equally, this discussion page is routinely deleted to stop anyone actually debating. This article was once deleted, but is it not possible for something to then justify an article in the future? Now, I ask can we please have some debate here:
The main reason for Lostpedia's removal is that of "notability". However, why is it that Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia and Comixpedia can all have articles and Lostpedia cannot? None of these sites have any notability at all apart from the odd mention in Sci-fi.com, whilst Lostpedia has also been addressed on that site as well as from official representatives of the Lost Experience (an alternate reality game directly run by ABC and the creators of Lost itself). Thus, how does Lostpedia lack notability, even when not comparing it to other wiki sites given an article. It seems the rules are completely informal at Wikipedia as one user suggests on Talk:Wookieepedia when discussing possible deletion. All arguments against this page centre around the initial content on the page which was deleted. This is accepted as, by account, it was advertising the website shamefully (though those who have seen the content maintain this shameful plugging is overstated by many). However, why can no other attempt to rewrite the article without having their work mysteriously get deleted. It is difficult for people to vote when they cannot see the new content, and its removal will never allow real debate, as arguably one cannot make an informed decision on this matter until they read for themselves "what the fuss is all about".
So, in summary, I ask that the article please be restored and nominated for deletion formally rather than speedily removed. The current version deleted today which I created was objective and non-offensive, and so I do not see why it cannot be left whilst a discussion is held, as it causes no harm. Also, I realise one deletion discussion was done right at the start, but why can't another one be held at a later date? Finally, I ask that this comment is not immediately deleted by an administrator (which has already happened about six times). Thank you and I hope we can actually have a real discussion about this issue --Nickb123 3rd 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to WP:DRV,articles areant undeleted to go to AfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's already been to DRV and the deletion endorsed.  Community consensus is that this is adequately covered by linking to Lostpedia from the Lost article, not much beyond its existence is of note. Guy 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An old version was deletion endorsed due to consideration it was "advertisement". A new version should be separately assessed --Nickb123 3rd 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been before, it still doesnt deter from the fact Lostpedia is non notable however. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the notability policy, and by my interpretation there are official connections to the franchise considering the Lost Experience, in essence part of the show itself, mentioned Lostpedia numerous times, not only on the official blog (linked to at lost.abc.com) but on the final radio broadcast that ended the game itself --Nickb123 3rd 10:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really quite simple: the article has been deleted by consensus, based on an assessment of the subject as well as of the article.  The deletion was reviewed and upheld.  If you want the article back, you should go to deletion review with evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, proof that it meets the website inclusion guidelines, and some indication of what has changed since the (fairly recent) deletion review. Guy 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't understand is how this should fall under speedy deletion.  I realize that the article was deleted before and should not simply be restored to its previous version, but CSD G4 requires that the content be "substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject."  --Jabrwocky7 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm not sure what this is worth, but as of today (October 18 2006) Alexa ranked Lostpedia.com  at 15,034 with a 3 month average reach of 68.5 million. memory-alpha.org  has an Alexa rank of 26,306 with a 3 month average of 41.5 million. 
This alone does not ensure notability, but this does give some credence to Lostpedia.com getting an article. Given the popularity of Lost, and the growth of Lostpedia.com, it will likely meet the WP:WEB soon. When it does it should get an article or at the very least taken off the Spam Blacklist and given one link someplace on the Lost (TV series) article. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa Rankings 

message: I cannot edit the article; yet the  notice says "You are welcome to edit this article,".  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction? 

message: The following was removed "It includes character biographies, episode summaries, and fan edited theories about the numerous mysteries in the programme." as being to much like an advert. The article needs a description of the contents of the site. Any Suggestions for a new sentence? -Dr Haggis - Talk 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at rewording, hopefully it comes across as being objective enough --Nickb123 3rd 07:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of content

message: STRONG KEEP: Memory Alpha, Wookipedia, all t hese get there own artice, but this somehow doesnt.  Also, writers of the LOST Experience used Lostpedia! They gave us clues! Also, it won SciFi best website award! And is very a VERY popular website. It is indeed Notable. Also, Jimmy Whales, Jimmy frikin Whales posted on Lost Pedia. Jimmy Whales just happens to be the founder of Wikipedia! He also founded the LOST Wikia, which does either have an article. STRONG KEEP! --Iron Chef 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it's not a vote, it's a discussion.  Second, the place to register your opinion is not here but on this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)  Third, anonymous votes are almost certainly going to be ignored.  If you want to participate, I'd suggest at least signing up for an account on wikipedia (although comments new accounts are likely to be taken less seriously as well).  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote Now! 

message: I'd like to request an example or examples of wikipeda articles that are considered to be top notch, about fansites.  There has obviously been some controversy about what is appropriate for this sort of article.  There have also been articles about similar topics mentioned (I won't mention any names), but those articles have been criticised for similar reasons as well.  So what is an exemplary article on a similar topic?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for reference/example articles 

message: Should the Theories bit fall under Controversy or just content?  I'd say content, since it is a notable part of the content of the site, and putting it under Controversy seems to put too much emphasis on the negative side.  There's certainly an argument to be made that the theories are one of the things that makes the site unique and distinctive.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories section 

message: Well, congratulations, y'all. It seems to have gone your way. Maybe I'll stop by some time to edit. --Loqi T. 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD cleared 

message: There seems to be a lot of text in the article addressing and defending the shortcomings of Lostpedia as pointed out by other Wikipedia editors (fancruft, copyright, wiki nature, etc.). While in no way am I claming that their criticisms are false or invalid - they're patently not - I do point out that these claims aren't reliably sourced. For example, "fancruft" is a Wikipedia jargon term that shouldn't really be included in any encyclopedia unless it gains notability outside the Wikipedia editing community. (see Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references) The criticisms of Lostpedia need to be more reliably sourced. I will remove some claims until they are, but don't interpret this as trying to discount or hide criticism 195.173.23.111 09:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia-centric and unsourced criticisms 

message: The peer review page says it "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work".  This page has only been active for a week or two, and obviously needs some serious work.  I think it's very premature to request peer review on a page this rough.  I've removed the peer review tag.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess whoever listed it intended to secure the position and make sure it gets enough exposure to avoid afd. While I'm here, I'll say this: when was Lostpedia created? By who? What did the different newspaper say about it? Where can we find official transcripts of the DJ Dan podcast where he references it? Where was the 42nd glyph exactly, and what did it look like? What's the general structure of the site, and what have been its strongest/weakest points so far? Maybeit would be good to comment (just to mention, actually) the other sites that have been included by the creators of the show (lost ninja, othergirl or whatever), and the attempt at planting info on Wikipedia. Cheers!--SidiLemine 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: when was Lostpedia created? By who? What did the different newspaper say about it? Where was the 42nd glyph exactly, and what did it look like? These questions are answered in the article. I'm not sure about the transcripts. Those are important. -Dr Haggis - Talk 17:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the only transcript on the net is one Lostpedia users scribed in collaboration, splitting the time slots between them to write a full 2-hour script. Thus, will Wikipedia allow a notability source which in effect is only listed on Lostpedia? However, thelostexperienceclues.com I believe published the audio, so a link could also be given to that if anyone was in doubt --Nickb123 3rd 11:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary source that would verify the information would be the original recording.  I assume it must be available somewhere on the internet, can someone find it?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I have is this which as I said earlier is from thelostexperienceclues.com --Nickb123 3rd 18:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: The links to the various language Lostpedias was changed from directing a reader to that language site, to a wiki link about that language. I would think that if a reader was interested in the German Lostpedia site, they would want to go there rather then read about the history of the language. 
Should we add links to the sister language projects in the "External links", or return them to the language section of the article? -Dr Haggis - Talk 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I added the links in the external links section. 195.173.23.111 12:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate language links 

message: The Lostpedia page has a long road ahead of it. Maybe now that the Sword of Damocles has been put away, you can be the responsible stewards that we all know you are.
I leave you with today's contribution to my user page, reprinted here in full. --Loqi T. 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A parting gift from Loqi