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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freopedia[edit]

Freopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has numerous issues. Firstly there are the conflicts of interest issues, in that many of the contributors to the article are organisers of this programme. Secondly, and most importantly, the sourcing does not show any degree of notability. The sources which mention Monmouthpedia do not mention Freopedia in any detail past a passing mention. The City of Fremantle is involved in this project, so information sourced to them can not be used to establish notability. This includes sources http://www.fremantlestory.com.au/ and http://www.visitfremantle.com.au/ which are operated by the City of Fremantle. The Fremantle Port Authority is also involved in this project, so the source to them can't be used to established notability. The source of Craig Franklin giving a 5 minute interview to 6PR also can not be used to establish notability, given his involvement with Wikimedia Australia and this being an WMAU pet project. That leaves us with 2 sources. http://96fm.com.au/index.php/events/showEvent/312 appears to be more of a directory listing of events on in Perth so anyone with a press release could get it listed. That leaaves us with the Cockburn Gazette, a community newspaper which services only a few suburbs. There is zero notability for this project. My apologies if this is done wrong, I had to register an account to bring this up for deletion discussion. CanterburyKiwi (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered that too, but then I thought that maybe this user generally edits anonymously. Don't know if that's the case, of course, but I guess it's one reason not to dismiss this. Dunno. Sam Wilson 10:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - the high probability of a WP:SOCK or someone wishing to perform a WP:PA on somebody involved with Freopedia is strong enough indicated in the nomination to ask for a checkuser of the 2 edit editor. satusuro 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it doesn't matter until someone else wants to come and agree with CanterburyKiwi about deleting Freopedia. It rather looks like everyone thinks it should stay put. :-) How long does this stay open till it's decided one way or t'other? Sam Wilson 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of AGF is (as its name suggests) the assumption of good faith when there is no evidence to suggest bad faith. In the case of CanterburyKiwi and this AfD proposal I see absolutely no evidence of bad faith or bias. (That we disagree with the proposal is irrelevant.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt call it "no evidence" the account was created two minutes before this nomination which was its first edit. We should assume good faith in that action as its potentially a person who may be known personally to many of the Freopedia participants, WMAU members and Australian editors in general and wishes to be anonymous. I can understand SatuSuro concerns because there have been other events to cause raised eyebrows about this. Gnangarra 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any conflict of interest, but there could certainly be bias, or the perception thereof. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to quote the nomination rationale The article has numerous issues. Firstly there are the conflicts of interest issues, .....(my emphasis) thats is what I'm addressing there. The second point the contributors to the article are organisers of this programme.... I am the organisor I havent contributed to the article my only edit was when it was a redirect none of the article editors have a direct role in organising this though Sam is/was highly involved in most offline activities and in content creation. The rest is about notability which others have addressed. Gnangarra 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the assumption of good faith is that you don't need a reason - it's the default state. You need a reason not to assume good faith. Perhaps there are specific reasons - they have been alluded to above - as to why this particular case is suspicious (and I'm curious as to what they are, specifically), but one ought not tar all IPs or new editors with the same brush. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - regardless whether 'new' or not (how could the editor be 'new' if the nomination with its knowledge of notability, and the details about the project and the publications be possibly new?) - at AFD's specially (and RFA's) 2 edit users should be either (a) open and honest about how they know about wp policies to be able to even present such a nomination (which is why I suggest a checkuser request should be put in) (b) ignored and have the AFD closed on the basis that editors who have no indication of any experience on wikipedia or are not prepared to show their other account experience - otherwise they wouldnt even know anything about notability. satusuro 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just discuss the proposal and the article, on their merits, rather than debating the faith of the proposer ... Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the language, style and expressions of the nomination - that is not a neutral nomination. I am of the firm opinion that such nominations (2 edits and obvious experience and understanding notability and inherent assumptions about participants and the project) should never be allowed further than the nomination. satusuro 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When an editor knows enough about the system to propose a deletion and then immediately inform the person who started the article, it is quite clear that they have edited wikipedia before. I think we are entitled to know under what username or IP address he/she has done so. Since we do not know (or at least, I do not know), I am suspicious. I think SatuSuro is also entitled to be suspicious. Would the nominator please come forward and introduce himself/herself to us as a wikipedian? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freopedia was actualy chosen as a finalist, not just nominated, in the 2014 heritage awards, per [1] - Evad37 [talk] 01:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on process This is an AfD for the article, not a venue for you to speculate about the identity, motivations, other accounts, or anything else about the nominator. Why the OP nominated the topic is completely irrelevant, other than in terms of the actual rationale proposed for deletion. Calling another editor a troll, or a sock, or saying they should be checkusered, or nitpicking their understanding of 'organizers' vs. 'contributors'.... this is all way off topic here, and, honestly, reads like an attempt to derail this through denigrating the nominator rather than actually debating the article at hand. That being said, I personally find attempts to 'judge' the contributions of editors, even if that contribution is to nominate an article for AfD, based on their number of edits, or how much 'social capital' they have built up among this or that group of editors to be completely contrary to the principles what we are supposed to all be following. @SatuSuro:, you seem to have gone far past 'not assuming good faith' to 'actively assuming bad faith'. Being 'neutral' is supposed to apply to editors as well...don't judge arguments based on 'who' made them, judge them based on if they are valid. Quit going on about the 'good old days', as if to emphasize your 'seniority'. Nobody assessing the issue at hand should give a damn. Reventtalk 05:22, 5 July 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.
More