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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashcard Exchange[edit]

Flashcard Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:WEB is the guideline for inclusion of a website. "Notable and of historical significance" is a quote from the WP:WEB header. I believe the spirit of WP:WEB is not met in this case. You believe the opposite. Hopefully consensus will be reached here and we'll both live with the result. Carlh (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... some sort of explanation would be useful. onebravemonkey 09:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, hold on. It was this, wasn't it? Both myself and Linguist !voted delete... have the other editors (those who !voted keep) been contacted? There is a fine line between notifying interested parties and canvassing, but I'm pretty sure which side of it you are at the moment... onebravemonkey 09:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe you recall, almost all of the Keep voters were sockpuppets made solely to attempt to stop Crammage from being deleted. You can see warnings made by C.Fred on several talk pages (examples: User talk:76.14.82.5 User talk:Homeboyfrisco) and by yourself here User talk:Thomasjnewsome. Since the Crammage article was deleted I don't think any of them are ever coming back. I became involved in the Crammage AfD because User_talk:58.3.182.104 left a note on my talk page. But if I think back it was more appropriate as I had indeed reverted a spammy edit to the Supermemo page made by one of the Crammage sockpuppets. I'm no AfD expert. I did not mean to break any rules. Not a mistake I will repeat. I barely managed to make the AfD :). I usually participate when others take the lead. Here is "my side": I have a few interests on Wiki that I monitor every few months one is Flashcards, E-learning, and Spaced Repetition- a subject which unfortunately attracts a lot of adverts. I've participated from the side mostly (or via speedys) on Bettermemo, IFlipr, MemorizeIt, Mental Case, and StudyProf. Fought the good fight and lost on Winflash and Anki. I have nothing in particular against Flashcard Exchange and in this case I don't think Cunard is at all acting in bad faith or indeed has anything to do with the website. We just have an everyday disagreement over notability. My goal is to keep the E-learning/flashcard related articles relatively clean. I think they are ok now and part of the reason is that individual sites and programs are generally kept off. Of course I'm willing to live with the consensus. --Carlh (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to argue these are trivial sources. The first is an non-notable website with what is pretty much a directory listing and the second is a review about another product altogether (Mental case) not this website. Carlh (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education World is a reliable source and their reviews are written and edited by their staff (see their about page for more information). The editorial analysis in this source—"The site is simply designed and intuitive to use"—makes it more than a directory listing. (While the second source reviews another product, it provides significant coverage about Flashcard Exchange. (The general notability guideline defines "significant coverage" as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".) This website is marginally notable but has enough coverage in reliable sources for me to support retention. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope it's okay that I'm chiming in. I'm not practiced at the linking to Wikipedia sources as footnotes for debate here, and my position is very simply a personal one: I went looking for information myself, and didn't find it here. I like to learn the history about websites that I come across and become interested in, and I have always considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy site where I can find relevant information about contemporary topics without searching for an hour on Google. I recognize that my assumption that this will help other users is based solely on my own usage model. I did spend quite a bit of time reading the guidelines for contribution and made a sincere effort to adhere to them, but a is the case with moderating most user-generated content, the guidelines mainly serve as an outline for subjective interpretation. I value the guidance I've received since publishing, and I'm learning a lot as I go. :-) Thanks so much for your input and discussion! Katieshy (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cunard! :-) It's not so much the linking part but the awareness of the applicable Wikipedia-guideline articles in order to reference.  ;-) (UTC)Katieshy 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:06, 11 December 2010 (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.
More