Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Keep. Runcorn 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wipipedia

edit
Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia

del, nonnotabke wiki. Since its first momination the article failed to addresss the concerns of notability and verifiability. `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading the first debate, I'm leaning towards delete. The concerns were not addressed. Some had an WP:ILIKEIT stance, some wanted to keep the article because "WP:WEB is not policy, so it has no relevance". You'll have to do better than that. Also, whether the "specialist wikis" thrive is not really our business. Punkmorten 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this site meets WP:WEB. Yes, it's not policy, but there's a reason it's around, and it's not to be contravened by a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes. --Kinu t/c 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB since I can't find any coverage by reliable sources, awards won or anything else notable. Jayden54 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I believe that the previous AfD was completely unfair, and people were !voting keep because of the matter of the subject itself, while completely ignoring WP:WEB. This isn't notable, period. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, WP:Web is not policy. It is inadmissible to delete something because of guidelines. What policy does it fail to meet? Secondly, this is not a vote; it is a debate. The closing admin looked at the debate and decided not to delete, so the stuff about "a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes" is irrelevant.--Brownlee 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which WP:WEB criteria it doesn't meet?
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - All I could find through Google is two short summaries of the website from two other websites: podcastdirectory.com and the-iron-gate.com. These are not, however, published works or media re-prints.
    • The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. - Nope.
    • The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - There is informedconsent.co.uk, but again, it is not a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster.
    • The WP:ILIKEIT-based votes don't show notability, but rather disturb Wikipedia's deletion process. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People keep citing WP:WEB, but this was rejected as policy. Nobody can produce any policy reason for deleting this article, and therefore the clear decision taken recently to keep must stand.--Taxwoman 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to confuse it with some other page, WP:WEB is a confirmed policy guideline. I believe I provided enough reasons for this to fail that certain criteria, and therefore it should not be kept. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rejected? Can you provide a link to the discussion where it was rejected? It says the following at the top of WP:WEB: This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues so I don't see how it can be rejected. Jayden54 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here [1] it was downgraded from a proposed policy to a guideline.--Taxwoman 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still an official guideline that carries weight in these discussions. If there was no such guideline a lot of confusion would exist whether a website is notable or not. This guideline makes it possible to say "XXX is not notable", and applies in this case. This website is not notable. Jayden54 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, you haven't stated any arguments for your vote either, except the claim that WP:WEB is not an official policy. Care to explain your vote? As it stands this website isn't notable enough to be included. Also, you should mention that you are an administrator at that website, since there's some conflict of interest. Thanks! Jayden54 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the article was kept after the last AfD, and there is no policy reason whatsoever to delete it, the onus is on the proposers to find a valid reason for deletion. I have no more conflict of interest than any other editor trying to ensure that Wikipedia is not damaged by deletion of a good article. Please note WP:NPA.--Taxwoman 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, no personal attack meant, although in retrospect, my message is a bit harsh. My argument still stands though. This website fails WP:WEB (which has not been rejected as far as I know) so not notable enough to be included. Jayden54 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AnonMoos seems to advertise this process in Wipipedia. I've added a template on the top of this page of those who come following the notice. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever, dude -- I informed the two most active Wipipedia administrators (both of whom also participate in Wikipedia, and one of whom, BalzacLFS, was very active in the last AFD, before I had ever even heard of Wipipedia). AnonMoos 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The theory that something must go against the letter of a policy to be deleted is absurd. -Amarkov blahedits 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those recommending to keep are correct in stating WP:WEB is not a policy. However, it is still a guideline, which does carry more weight in an AfD discussion than a generalized statement calling for its ignoring. To quote WP:N, the main notability guideline: It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Likewise, One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Look at other AfDs: a majority of the decision to keep and delete is based on such notability guidelines; while not policy, they provide an accepted barometer for whether a site is reasonably covered in third-party sources to be included herein. Any reasonable administrator will ignore, rightfully so, recommendations which simply state WP:WEB is not policy, so it doesn't matter, as they come off as well, the guideline doesn't work for us, so let's give ourselves a free pass here. Rather than simply stating that obvious truth, those recommending to keep are advised to find reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --Kinu t/c 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments were laid out at length last time and there was a clear decision to keep. Obviously the closing admin thought that whatever the status of WP:WEB, the arguments amounted to a case to keep. Nothing has changed since then. Incidentally, I hope that Michaelas10 will withdraw his claim that WP:WEB is policy.--Holdenhurst 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the above explanation by Kinu. Even if WP:WEB is not a policy (a guideline but still), it is often used to show notability or non-notability on Wikipedia's deletion process, and saying that this article should be kept because it isn't a policy is not a valid arguement. Instead, try to find something to help you prove that this website might pass one of WP:WEB's criteria, but until then there is no reason for this to be kept. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepish Comment. I don't have a passionate interest in this in any direction. But it seems to me that two things have happened: one is that, the first time this article was nominated for deletion, the final decision was to keep the article in Wikipedia; the other, which Taxwoman has pointed out, is that WP:WEB has been specifically demoted from policy to a guideline. I don't track the Wipipedia website; but it seems to me that such a website, in the half year or so that has passed since this article first survived a deletion nomination, would have grown, not shrunk, in whatever worthiness it had to be mentioned in its own Wikipedia article. I'm too busy right now to keep on following this discussion in detail; but I offer these points for consideration. Also, maybe Wikipedia should have a double-jeopardy policy or guideline about AfD. — President Lethe 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep did we not have this same argument six months ago and the result was a keep? The wipipedia is a serious attempt at a BDSM wiki, content sourced from it is now being used in wikipedia articles it and is linked to by many more, is now in the ALexa top 100,000 websites. I think that commonsense would indicate that it has an entry on the wikpieda. BalzacLFS 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not verifiable. Mukadderat 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many articles are listed, relisted, and listed again at AfD; most of these are good-faith attempts to benefit the project, and this appears to be one of those cases. To say that it was kept once already, so it should be kept again is circular logic: if indeed the article should be kept this time as well, there should be valid arguments to that point, rather than the simple fact that it did survive a previous attempt for x reason. Establishing a consensus, and reaffirming that consensus, hardly constitutes double jeopardy; the quality of the article can change over time, facts about the subject of the article can change over time, and so on, and comparing the article then to the article now may ultimately be comparing apples and oranges, rather than (to continue the example) "trying the same article twice". Regardless, bear in mind that double jeopardy or anything to that effect is not a policy, nor is it a guideline. Notability, however, is a guideline, and regardless of the outcome of the first AfD and/or the reason the original administrator closed it as a keep, the article should be able to (but as far as I can see, does not) stand on its own merits... and I will repeat myself: those recommending to keep are advised to find reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --Kinu t/c 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the test for notability is that the contenst should be republished. The wipipedia is republished in its entirity on Informed Consent. Informed Consent (according to Alexa) is the UKs largest (non porn) BDSM website. Informed Consent is a non trivial website dealing with issues relevent to the subject of BDSM. Within the world of alternative sexuality Informed Consent is as serious as it gets (BTW this is kinky sex we are talking about, the wipipedia is never going to be repubished in Nature!). BalzacLFS 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You provided the same arguement in the last debate. Again, it is not an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster nor it is very popular (its Alexa rank is 14,686). Besides, the most of the content there is taken from Wikipedia, rather than Wipipedia. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is wrong with that. In my opinion IC is a notable site, for a webbsite to be in the top 15,000 worldwide would give it the same reach as a regional newapaper's website. That is a popular site by any definition. Again, this is a specialist field, many specialist scientific sites would not get into the top 250,000 that does not make them not notable. You have also not given any specific reasons why you think it is not notable nor have you offered examples of what you would consider notable sites in the field of BDSM. BalzacLFS 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This still does not make it an "online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", which means it has no content that would be labeled as official by any means. I believe I provided enough examples above to why it doesn't pass WP:WEB, and I consider any website that doesn't that doesn't meet it as a non-notable website. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am still not sure why you consider that IC is not an online magazine, it published articles and listings, it provides a non trivial forum (yes, there are also trivial posts as well!) for discussion of the subject matter of BDSM. This meets my definition of a magazine. I am not sure what do you mean by labeled as official. Within the BDSM community IC is highly regarded. BalzacLFS 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two issues. One is the notability of the site. This was established in the last AfD, and nobody has provided any evidence that it has become less notable since. The other is the overall good of Wikipedia. Even if a case could be made for deleting the article, this would damage Wipipedia, and therefore Wikipedia which increasingly is getting content from Wipipedia rather than vice versa. And if the zealous application of the letter of the law would damage Wikipedia, then it is our duty to apply WP:IAR and keep the article.--Osidge 21:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No notabillity was established in the last AfD, and all keep !votes were either based on WP:ILIKEIT or did not provide an reasonable arguement rather than "WP:WEB is not a policy so it should be ignored". We don't keep it articles because deleting them might damage their subject, and the fact that Wikipedia takes content from Wipipedia is ridiculous and has nothing to do with this AfD. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, notability was established, hence the keep result. No arguments were given as to why IC (the basis for passing the test) was not notable apart from unsupported assertions that it was not. The people making the assertions appeared to have little knowledge of the BDSM scene (correct me if I am wrong)and therefore are not best placed to give an informed opinion on the subject. BalzacLFS 11:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please explain were the notability was established? I didn't find arguements that indicate this. All who commented to delete this provided WP:WEB, which you seemed to be ignoring. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't help but feel that we are going around in circles with this argument. I maintain that the site is notable for reasons already stated and you maintain that for reasons already stated it is not :-). The problem I feel is due in a large part to the subject matter, BDSM is never going to have sources of sufficient gravitas to satisfy the purists. This is because it is a sexual activity that many people feel is wrong and whose practices would fall foul of every health and safety code going. Personally I think that many of the current articles about BDSM should not be on the Wikipedia as the website is used by minors (but this is a separate argument). Within the BDSM community the Wipipedia is published on two of the largest UK BDSM websites and has supplied content for the Wikipedia. The article on the Wipipedia is not very good but I am sure it will be improved. In the end someone will have to make a call as to if the article is adding value to the Wikipedia or not. P.S. Happy Christmas BalzacLFS 10:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that Informed Consent isn't very popular nor is an official organization/magazine so it might be close, but it still fails WP:WEB. I don't feel that any of the "reasons already stated" were valid reasons for keeping this article, but rather done per conflict of interest by the site's members or frequent visitors. Besides, this AfD was submitted due to notability concerns and not quality concerns. Sorry if my comments might have seemed a bit offensive. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article is notable, as nearly as I can make out. It is, apparently, referenced by several sites devoted to the same subject matter, albeit one with a minority following. Although with the number of politiicans and public figures who keep getting exposed as having related interests, perhaps the minority is larger than many think. Anyway, there deserves to be an article on this wiki. As for whether this article is good enough to keep, that's another thing altogehter. It's certainly not distinguished, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Improve it perhaps -- no certainly improve it -- but not delete it. ww 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep not that WP use is definitive but it is widely used as a see also on WP articles within its general scope.DGG 03:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I don't know (or really care) that much about all the fine intricacies of the distinctions between "guideline" and "policy, but the fact that this is the biggest effort of its kind in the English language (http://www.smiki.de/ is probably bigger in German) should count for something... AnonMoos 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks sources. Notability is not subjective, etc. Guidelines and essays may not be written on stone tablets, but they certainly beat WP:ILIKEIT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Balzac and AnonMoos. WP:WEB isn't policy, and notability guidelines and inclusion criteria are subjective. Those who disagree should attempt to make those guidelines into firm policy and see what the response would be. metaspheres 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Would you care to actually provide sources? Nobody seems to be able to find any good ones, and WP:V is not only policy, it's non-negotiable policy. -Amarkov blahedits 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please tone down the attitude? Keep it friendly, this is a discussion, not a vicious circle. metaspheres 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's so infuriating when peoiple point out inconvenient facts - and Michaelas10 has yet to apologise for claiming that WP:WEB is policy and ticking me off for pointing out that it isn't. Even more annoying, of course, is the constant reference to WP:ILIKEIT, which is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.--Taxwoman 10:56, 28 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wipipedia_(2_nomination)&oldid=1070012701"