Lonelygirl15

so im probably just a loser and behind on news....but the thing on cassieiswatching has been deleted from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... iswatching

Damn!!!

That was the place I sent all my noob friends to explain who Cassie is....

I don't see why it shouldn't be.

thats where i was sending people also. i was tired of explaining. i think it should be there.

Besides, it's not really easy to explain the whole thing.....

And as people said in the discussion page, it is much more relevant and popular than a lot of articles they keep.

i agree... the popularity alone should have it in wikipedia

This all boils down to the Encyclopedia vs Internet Culture debate. I would never expect to find cassieiswatching in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. So, if you side with Wikipedians that believe articles should be relevant only to encyclopedic knowledge then the answer is no. However, if you side with Wikipedians that believe all popular cultural topics deserve coverage then the answer is yes.

This central debate has been raging since Wikipedia began, and the sides are almost equal in distribution. In fact, bringing up this topic to a group of Wikipedians is like throwing a fresh steak to a pack of hungry wolves, or mentioning politics and religion in casual conversation.

For the record, I chose a side in the deletion discussion, because I liked the handy reference.

the main reason i believe it should stay is because this is far to complex to continually explain to people. and having it wiki. made it quick and easy for people to catch up when joining, or when gone for extended periods of time.

ravensgrace wrote:This all boils down to the Encyclopedia vs Internet Culture debate. I would never expect to find cassieiswatching in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica.

But you'd expect Lists of fish on stamps? Not a list, but a list of lists about stamps that have fish in them. Notable indeed.

So which brave soul would like to file the undelete request so all of us board members can make sure to vote this time.

I did vote before--and the final tally was 14 to 13 in favor of deletion.

I'm sure we could swing it back...

SR wrote:

ravensgrace wrote:This all boils down to the Encyclopedia vs Internet Culture debate. I would never expect to find cassieiswatching in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica.

But you'd expect Lists of fish on stamps? Not a list, but a list of lists about stamps that have fish in them. Notable indeed.

ROFL! That was my point. I simply presented both sides of the debate, if you'd kept reading you would have seen that I voted for keeping the article.

if need be... i can file an undelete request....if someone tells me how. lol.

covedweller wrote:So which brave soul would like to file the undelete request so all of us board members can make sure to vote this time.

I did vote before--and the final tally was 14 to 13 in favor of deletion.

I'm sure we could swing it back...

I think it should be filed by someone who has a long-standing account with Wikipedia. That always seems to hold more sway with them.

Even the LG15 entry on the Wikipedia was deleted several times for being too irrelevant. I think it finally qualifies as relevant now; her entry remains.

romanceismusic wrote:the main reason i believe it should stay is because this is far to complex to continually explain to people. and having it wiki. made it quick and easy for people to catch up when joining, or when gone for extended periods of time.

Here's Google's cached version:

Wikipedia -- cassieiswatching

It won't be editable, but this discussion will probably be moot once the "LGPedia" or whatever it's called is finally up and running.

I don't think we should hold an entire web community accountable for our loss of data; we represent a pretty small subset of internet constituants, and I am not in favor of pressing the issue with the kind Wikipedians. I suggest that we continue working on our summaries and that we transfer as much knowledge as possible to LGPedia as soon as it's available.