Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

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 delete. Wizardman 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This list is an indiscriminate collection of websites which apparently have one thing in common: they run a particular software, the pertinence of which fact escapes me. The list is also subject to a lame edit war about whether a particular website should be included or not; see WP:ANI#List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine. Sandstein (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, lists like this are better handled as categories to which items notable enough to warrant their own articles can be added. GreatestJournal and DeadJournal both appear notable enough to have their own articles. I'm not sure if any of the others are. Neitherday (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. The two news stories already cited provide the reliable secondary sources needed for most of the list, and the active populations of these sites range from the size of a small town to the size of a small country. Remove anything that has no secondary sources. Note that this article was, until very recently, a section in LiveJournal; it would also be acceptable to me to merge it back into that article, but I think it should not be deleted altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One of the reasons for me proposing the move was the section gave Undue weight to other communities and issues other than the LJ virtual community. It is hard for the LiveJournal article to be complete and balanced because it is a service, software, and a company ... maybe the issue is which takes priority. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. Which is why I'm happier with keeping the list as a separate article than merged back in. But it is highly relevant for the LiveJournal article that some LiveJournal users have migrated to other hosts with similar software, as the News.com article indicates, so this "List of..." article is convenient as something that can be linked to from the main LiveJournal article in that context. In the context of WP:UNDUE, I think it would give rise to similarly unbalanced coverage of LiveJournal if we were to remove any mention of these alternative sites and the user migrations to them from the LiveJournal article, as I think would be likely to happen if this list is deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: To me, it sounds like we should have a separate article for each function (service, software, company), then. Should we split the LiveJournal article into three parts? If so, this page can then be easily merged into the LiveJournal (software) page. Admiral Memo (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list appears to be a coatrack existing as a proxy for standalone articles on a series of websites that can't meet the standards of WP:V by themselves. If kept, it should be pruned back to a list of websites (as opposed to a series of promotional blurbs about said sites). I generally don't like to advocate deletion for sub-articles that are forked off from larger ones for reason of length, but I don't think this material should've ever been a part of LiveJournal in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep in entirety, or else Delete. Either way, it should not be allowed to be used to promote POV bias. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least revert the LiveJournal article to it's orignal form with all material on the article in discussion. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I included a pointer to this discussion on Talk:LiveJournal — given the relative newness of this list as a separate article, my guess is that few people have it on their watchlists, and therefore that mentioning it on the LJ article's talk page will be more likely to attract informed participants to this discussion. I hope my message there is sufficiently neutral as not to run afoul of WP:CANVAS. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to LiveJournal as it was before. If any of these are considered to be notable enough, they can be split off each into their own article (i.e., one article for one site, rather than having this page listing them all). Mdwh (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back Or, on the talk page I suggested a rename of the article to focus on the software - which is independently notable as an open source blogging server engine. The list then is not the focus of the article, but a small piece of a larger scoped article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Very weak keep. The list cannot be merged back because it gives Undue weight to communities not related to the LJ community but the LJ software. A few of these communities are probably notable enough for their own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejerm (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mere mention is documentation, not undue weight. The weight of the list itself is evidence of the LJ blogging engine being notable independently of the LiveJournal website. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

True. However, the content in question is not a mere mention of sites but is a fairly detailed list of other sites running the LiveJournal engine and why/why not they are better/worse than the original LiveJournal engine. So the list should stay because that is what it is, a list (but then Sandstein notes Wikipedia is not a directory). OR it should go and the sites on that are votable enough could have their own article while LJ merely states the presence of other sites. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back to LiveJournal. These sites do not have sufficient coverage from reliable sources, and are not notable in their own right; a collection of non-notable sites isn't notable either. Terraxos (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and remerge for reasons stated above. Admiral Memo (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only allow entries that are sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia articles. This seems to be the case, except that some of the articles haven't been written. The list should exist primarily as a navigation aid with summary information only. Most of the content belongs in the individual articles. This article needs to be fixed, not deleted, as per policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if any of these are notable, then create articles, and include a category. Addhoc (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (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.