Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metanet

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.

Per our standing concern with sockpuppets attempting to bias the voting on this page, the anonymous and unsigned entries had to be steeply discounted (including the nominator's opinion). All facts presented by the anonymous contributors were considered, however. In aggregate, the final fact that tipped the decision to "delete" was the inability to source the use of this term in any significant levels outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia strongly discourages original research. Verifiability means more than just "go try it". For us, it also means that the concept is widely discussed in its field and that independent analysis about it is already available. The original author's intent is laudable but should be initiated in some forum other than Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Metanet

The Metanet article appears to be something like original research or a vanity page. The article reads more like a technical proposal for Metanet than like an encyclopedia article about Metanet. In several places it asserts minor points of view, e.g. "Unfortunately, membership is by invitation only" (only unfortunate if you hold the POV that participation is important), "Implementing an anonymous network on a service by service basis has its drawbacks," and the section evaluating various threats to Metanet stating how "worrisome" they are.

Rather than informing the reader of Metanet's existence and explaining its purpose, history, and characteristics, the article seems to be aimed at readers who already accept the need for such a network and are interested in reading about how it could be done. (In fact the article offers no proof that Metanet even exists other than as somebody's fantasy; if there is a Metanet website, a true external link to it rather than to IRC channels would be a good start toward making the article encyclopedic.)

The Metanet proponent seems to be advertising "his" article about Metanet on at least slashdot: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136334&cid=11387401 . Rather than serving as an encyclopedia article it seems this person wants to use the article as Metanet's homepage. 170.35.224.63 21:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Most of the content was written by the author of this article]. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. Slashdot link talks about freenet, where does it say anything about metanet? Also, does anyone have a link to an archive of the other link? Not in google cache, and it seems to be a 404? Did you mistype the ip address?

The slashdot poster's signature has changed, in the last four or five hours. Previously it was something like "Build an internet free of the corruption of corporations and governments," with a link to the Metanet article.

The second link has gone 404 just in the last few hours.

Sounds like the Metanet proponent is losing interest, making this article even less encyclopedically noteworthy. 170.35.224.64 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article was hosted on the poster's own IP address, apparently via cable modem. Possibly he has taken it offline because of the bandwidth hit from listing it here. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe he doesn't like slashdot trolls following his sigs back to wikipedia to be screwed with. I mean, if you had vandalized the page, Mr. 170.35.224.63, it would just have been reverted. If I really wanted to be evil, I'd put a marginal article up for vote to delete too.

Abstain. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, but unverifiability is cause for deletion, and there are more issues than whether or not Metanet exists. 170.35.224.64 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's true for just about everything - Global Warming, Aliens, Ghosts or even things like String Theory. That does not mean you do not write about them.

Huh? That's a non-sequiter. There is ample debate about ghosts, string theory etc. But there is no indication that there is any debate about Metanet, as described in this article. (There are plenty of other uses of the word.) GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:42, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. Of course don't delete it. Just because it's not a mainstream network doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that there aren't 100s/1000s/100000s of nodes on it. I'm sure Wikipedia has a lot of articles about thing that can't be proved to exist, or are denied to exist.
This is on the Talk page, having been removed from the main article:
"Helping the Cause An effort is under way to translate this page into as many languages as is practical. If you see your native language listed at the side of the page, we would appreciate you clicking on it, and translating just a sentence or two!"

Doesn't this sound just a touch suspicious? 24.125.12.101 appears to have been spamming 19 different language wikipedias. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone adds some reputable references. Paul August ☎ 04:07, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous votes

I moved anonymous votes down here. dbenbenn | talk 00:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete it, we like it.
Delete
Fair enough, delete.
dont delete
Delete 68.64.32.15 13:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete, this is the only reliable source of info we have on these networks. Entry-points to multiple different meta-nets can be found on IRC. Due to the highly private nature of these networks it makes sense that people are saying "We can't find these networks". That's the point. If you haven't been invited, you'll have a hard time finding one. That doesn't mean this page contains invalid/inappropriate/untrue information. If the page is deleted it will simply be submitted again. Also, the author of this "delete" article fails to realize there are MANY meta-nets. There isn't just one. Rumour has it two of them may be linking up at some point but that's about all I can say. This "delete" proposal is unfounded editorialism at best.

Then it should be deleted as unverifiable. (No change of vote.) —Korath (Talk) 05:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article a "reliable source of info"? It may be true, but without verifiable references there is no way for anyone to know. Without verifiability, it remains as you say, a "rumour". Rumours have no place in an encyclopedia. You have it backwords, it is the proposals to keep which are, so far, "unfounded" the burdened of proof, falls on those wanting to keep, not delete. Paul August ☎ 05:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself an "expert on the matter" and I am verifying right now that at least one metanet exists, seeing as how I am a member of one. Seeing as how the Wiki entry is fairly broad and general in its descriptions, that makes the entry hard to verify automatically. That doesn't mean impossible, just hard. The fact that some of the information is hard to verify does NOT lessen its validity or accuracy. I'm telling you, as a member of an actual metanet exactly as described, that the article is accurate and perfectly valid. You appear to have a very "guilty until proven innocent" type of attitude about this matter, which I believe goes against the concept of this site and its goals.

Keep - I have spoken with the author of that slashdot post, he did NOT submit this page, and thus is clearly not using it to promote his network, seeing as how, quite clearly, a member or owner of some other Metanet submitted the page. I know him well enough to know he is telling the truth. He actually wasn't even aware of the Metanet entry on wikipedia until someone else pointed it out to him. Don't make conclusions upon things you can't prove.

note: for those criticizing the unverifiability of the article, notice the 3rd "external link" which allows you to actually *connect to a metanet* for evaluation purposes. It doesn't get much more verifiable than that.

Keep Metanet exists. The idea of "evaluation purposes" is silly. If you can't figure out how to get on Metanet from a 'public router' then you shouldn't be on anyhow. It sounds like many want this entry deleted because they can't get on. Are we going to delete entries on religion because some people don't get it?

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.