Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open encyclopedia

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 redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open encyclopedia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Yes, there's a blog post, and maybe some scholar papers that mention "open encyclopedia" when referring to Wikipedia, but I failed so far when looking for further coverage of open encyclopedia as a concept itself. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, not saying anything about the reference. @@@XyX _talk 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable means passing the general notability guideline. Are there reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject? Which ones? MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is mentioned in this research article, in several books (Google Books ngram), news and publications (example in several blogs). -- Avoinlähde (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books ngrams are misleading. They detect the occurrence of both words together, even with punctuation in the middle. Many results are citations to the same article: Algowiki: an Open encyclopedia of parallel algorithmic features. We need actual, identifiable sources. It's not enough if they use the words "open encyclopedia". They should cover the concept of "open encyclopedia" significantly. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added mentions of other open encyclopedias alongside Wikipedia. Sure, the sources need to be improved, but Wikipedia just happens to be so popular and dominant that the term goes hand in hand with it. However, that does not detract from the importance of the topic. The article does not mention unreferenced information. --Avoinlähde (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. I agree with MarioGom that it isn't enough to find sources that happen to use this phrase: notability requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and a source that does nothing more than using the phrase is clearly not addressing the concept in detail. And in any event, even if the topic is notable, that doesn't necessarily mean that a standalone article is warranted, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The basic concept here – encyclopedias that consist of free/open content – is already covered at Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias, and there's no reason in this instance why content forking is needed: the main Encyclopedia article is not long enough to require splitting, and there are no content relevance issues. Since there's no content here that needs merging, the best solution is to redirect back to the main article as an alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Wikipedia might be an open encyclopedia, but it is not a dictionary (and this "article" is really a dictionary entry). Keep arguments are unconvincing, (an unsupported assertion of notability is not in the least a valid argument). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. As argued above, uses of the term are not necessarily discussion of the topic, and it's the latter we need. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias per above. I did some research myself but could not find adequate sourcing to justify having this as a separate article. A section is fine. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. I can't find any sources that actually discuss the concept directly, just uses of the term in discussing something related. As it stands this is a dictionary entry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 16 April 2022 (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.