Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (third nomination): Difference between revisions

Wipipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, since a number of edits have been made to the article since the AfD started, the article should be judged in this version: [1]--Taxwoman 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme BDSM Delete 900 articles in 3 years? Hardly notable. - Francis Tyers · 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Er, no (or whatever the safe word is) delete--Doc^g 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment What new issue is being raised here that wasn't extensively discussed during the last two rounds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination) ? -- AnonMoos 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People ignore the policy when voting. Anyway, this article could be speedy deleted under the no notability claim/spam rule. :-) bogdan 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which policy?--Brownlee 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Verifiability bogdan 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I just went to take a look there, that website is doing a lot better than before and there are many informative articles on BDSM. But I'm not sure about whether it's notable or not, so given the benefit of the doubt I !vote weak keep. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • if you include vandalism and reverts of vandalism, yes, there were over 100 edits :-) bogdan 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep the debate rational. There are far, far more than a dozen edits in most months.--Taxwoman 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Wooyi. Chris 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Could be kind of notable with the articles there. Corpx 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not. Prove that it is notable. bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just erring on the side of caution Corpx 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody here brought any real arguments against the non-notability claim. bogdan 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Erring on the side of caution here means delete until sources are actually found. Verifiability/reliable sourcing doesn't become optional just because the site is a Wiki, contrary to what many people believe. The closest thing I can find to a source [2] isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Wikipedia, since they only say Wipipedia once. --W.marsh 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No evidence is being supplied that has not already been considered and rejected at AfD and DRV.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejected by you apparently, in the second AFD. I'll start the article on my blog, which has exactly as many reliable sources as Wipipedia. Thanks for the precedent. --W.marsh 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a WP:POINT violation. Plus, I only said I'd give this article the benefit of the doubt, and only !voted weak keep instead of a conventional keep, so no need to be infuriated. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust your sarcasm detector... anyway how much benefit of the doubt does this article get though? It's had years for people to find sources. --W.marsh 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think for the third AfD in a year the onus is really on the nominator and supporters to show a clear case for deletion that wasn't raised in the other two, and I haven't see that here. --Myke Cuthbert 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Myke Cuthbert. The only case for deletion seems to be that the nominator doesn't like the article.--Brownlee 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually that it doesn't meet WP:WEB / WP:RS and no one can argue that it does. In fact the only argument for keeping is that people like the article. --W.marsh 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how about this rationale for deletion; this article has zero reliable sources which assert, or support notability. It patently fails the notability guidelines - and the fact that it has been previously kept, and yet still no sources have been added after months, indicates that it cannot be adequately sourced. I would seriously like to see some rationale for why this article doesn't violate notability standards. --Haemo 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's even odder that two people voting keep in this AFD signed onto your exact argument for deletion an hour earlier in another AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marijuana Anonymous. Why Wikipedia just loves some websites and not others, sources be damned, is quite strange. --W.marsh 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seriously, to wit the arguments have been:
  • "The previous AfD's kept it" - which, I frankly don't understand, given that no arguments were presented for why it should be kept, given that it fails notability standards. The most numerous argument was some combination of liking it and it's useful.
  • "The Wiki has many useful articles" - which has no bearing whatsoever, and is a variant of it's useful.
  • "It could be notable, if it had sources, so I'm erring on the side of caution" - I think after being AfD'd repeatedly, and no sources added, this shows it's unsourcable.
  • "I disagree that it fails WP:WEB" - but there is no explanation of why the use disagrees.
• It's stunning that people are willing to keep an article on such a basis. --Haemo 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People keep saying that it fails WP:WEB (which is not policy) or has other faults, yet they are unable to prove these assertions at AfD or DRV to the satisfaction of now three different admins. Please either prove these assertions or provide fresh areguments--Brownlee 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB says sources need to exist. If it meets WP:WEB, where are the sources? It's rather odd that the utter lack of sources somehow doesn't show you that this doesn't meet WP:WEB. If it meets WP:WEB people would have no problem linking to sources. --W.marsh 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB is not a policy, so whether or not it meets WP:WEB is not a valid argument.--Runcorn 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V and WP:NPOV is policy though... and we can't really generate an accurate, neutral article when everything is sourced to the website in question (especially since Wikis are not reliable sources in the first place). Even to ignore a guideline (WP:WEB) there needs to be a very good reason. "We like it" is absolutely not a good reason. The only reason we include this site and not my blog is that random Wikipedians like this site... that's pretty obvious bias. --W.marsh 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - all its sources at the bottom appear to be blogs, wikis, the site itself, and other unreliable sources. It thus fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It needs a major rewrite and sources at best. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is new here? Its notability and WP:WEB and everything else have been thrashed out at enormous length three times already and there was a decision to keep. WP:AGF, why nominate it again in the hope of a different result?--Osidge 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except no one credibly argued it met WP:WEB or notability standards, just that they liked the site, in so many words. The closes were made either by vote counting or apparent bias. Just because we made bad decisions in the past doesn't mean we have to keep making them perpetually... see Gay Nigger Association of America and Jimbo's comment [3]. --W.marsh 15:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So let's get this straight. Three different admins have closed previous discussions; all clearly rejected the WP:WEB and lack of notability standards arguments, not to mention the WP:RS and WP:V ones. So it seems that either they were all biased, or they were all incompetent and could only vote count without weighing the arguments.--Osidge 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, did you read Jimbo's comment? There's no serious argument that reliable sources exist here or that this meets WP:WEB. These policies and guidelines weren't rejected so much as they were ignored... no one's arguing this actually does meet WP:WEB or that reliable sources actually do exist. Several admins in this AFD have called strongly for deletion... why is the fact that 3 in the past decided to keep so compelling? --W.marsh 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprising as it may seem, not every off-Wiki comment by Jimbo is binding policy or to be taken as universally applicable. Obviously, if he were to comment on this AfD his views would receive due weight.--Runcorn 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's review the history. In the first AfD, it was alleged that the article failed WP:WEB and lacked reliable sources. These arguments were rejected and the AfD was a Keep - not a no consensus, a keep. In the second AfD, precisely the same arguments were made. These arguments were rejected again, and the AfD was a Keep - not a no consensus, a keep. Not willing to accept defeat, the movers went to DRV. Precisely the same arguments were made. These arguments were rejected again. It begins to look as if the claims that the article fails WP:WEB and lacks reliable sources are not universally accepted. In this AfD, precisely the same arguments are being made. They were not valid arguments on the last three occasions; why are they valid now?--Taxwoman 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying this does meet WP:WEB? Where are the sources? No one has argued that it meets WP:WEB, they've just argued that they like the site, more or less. No one ever closed saying "Keep because this meets WP:WEB", they basically said "keep because a bunch of people want to keep". --W.marsh 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above keep arguments and per precedent. As a side note: bad form for the nominator not to disclose the prior AfDs. Some of us remember them, however. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case anyone is wondering, the Deletion review is listed at [[4]] on 28 December, where the administrators argued over whether WP:WEB was followed properly in the 2nd AfD and the conclusion was no consensus to overturn. --Myke Cuthbert 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, the issue at this AfD is the same as at previous ones-there are simply no reliable secondary sources to support anything in this article. Notability aside, WP:V, a core policy, is pretty clear on that situation-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And we can't keep around articles which inherently violate core policies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly - the same issues are being raised for the fourth time and the concerns over WP:V have been rejected three times before.--Runcorn 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing here can reject WP:V. V says we shouldn't have it. So we shouldn't. Consensus couldn't, for example, decide we ought to have a POV article on something. It can't override V any more so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB -- fails our inclusion criteria. Jkelly 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]