Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curlie

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 DMOZ. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curlie

Curlie (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)

Article was converted from a redirect to DMOZ and should be restored as a redirect. I've been unable to find significant coverage about Curlie, which is a rump of the better known DMOZ. The only two independent sources included are both directory listings and both call Curlie the successor of DMOZ. There is no evidence of independent notability. Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should likely be merged to DMOZ. I created the page as a redirect which IMO is still the right choice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to DMOZ per above. KokoPhantom (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not redirect. Curlie is not DMOZ. It should either have its own article or have the URL available should Curlie ever become notable. The DMOZ article is not a place for more than a sentence about Curlie. (Notability is not inherited. If Curlie is not notable, then nothing in this article should be merged into the DMOZ article because by definition it is not notable.) 2005 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No redirect. No indicia of notability. bd2412 T 19:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not redirect. If the project ever takes off we can create a page for it. Right now there is zero evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to DMOZ, as hosting them is what Curlie is best known for and that article is the natural place to discuss forks. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge and Redirect. I tend to agree with the statement "Curlie is not Dmoz" on the basis that one DMOZ was an AOL property and the other (Curlie) is independent. The counter argument is that Curlie is based on the Dmoz concept and work and makes use of the same volunteer editing community (of which I am one) to review and publish sites as well as to run the directory as a whole. Simply deleting the Curlie article from Wikipedia without a replacement solution seems not terribly logical. Merging something active with what should be an archive (Dmoz) isn't something I can follow - though it could be done the other way around, so making the current Dmoz content the history section of Curlie? (in other words, redirecting Dmoz to Curlie). Elper (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Delete (no redirect) separate and not notable, but a source describes as a successor, it's a typical issue we have with forks. Widefox; talk 20:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not redirect because I can find zero RS coverage of Curlie. I can't even find an RS saying Curlie is the successor of DMOZ (though I see some describing it as "based on DMOZ"). ^Leviv_ich? ! 01:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to DMOZ: Per the nominator. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia seems to think this outfit is notable enough to have its own template. If this is good enough, then redirect. If its not, delete, but also delete the template. My worry is that Curlie, which has been added as a template to articles, is a depository allowing the liberal addition of spam links, so I would go further and add it to the list of banned sources. Acabashi (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your stance (worry) and reasoning; the template {{Curlie}} should be deleted and the domain should be added to WP:SPB. The template also makes it too easy to get around Wikipedia policy and guidelines (e.g. keeping links to a minimum, not linking to copyrighted works). --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like {{Dmoz}} was considered for deletion twice (2006, 2017). In December 2017, it was moved ('discussion') from {{Dmoz}} to {{Curlie}}. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect At some point, Curlie may become independently notable. Currently it is not. Curlie is a clear fork and continuation of Dmoz, but until we have reliable sources to that effect, it is probably better just being mentioned in the Dmoz article. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2019 (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.