Content deleted Content added
Michaelas10 (talk | contribs) m →[[Wipipedia]]: - Spelling. |
→[[Wipipedia]]: Comments |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''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.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
*'''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.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
**You seem to confuse it with some other page, [[WP:WEB]] is a ''confirmed policy''. I believe I provided enough reasons for this to fail that certain criteria, and therefore it should not be kept. '''<span style="background:#000">[[User:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">Michaelas10</span>]] [[User talk:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">(Talk)</span>]]</span>''' 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
**You seem to confuse it with some other page, [[WP:WEB]] is a ''confirmed policy''. I believe I provided enough reasons for this to fail that certain criteria, and therefore it should not be kept. '''<span style="background:#000">[[User:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">Michaelas10</span>]] [[User talk:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">(Talk)</span>]]</span>''' 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
***I don't know what page you're looking at, but [[WP:WEB]] clearly says "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia".--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**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. [[User:Jayden54|Jayden54]] 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
**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. [[User:Jayden54|Jayden54]] 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
** Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29&diff=31071283&oldid=30832195] it was downgraded from a proposed policy to a guideline.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*** 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! [[User:Jayden54|Jayden54]] 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
*** 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! [[User:Jayden54|Jayden54]] 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] seems to [http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Special:Contributions/AnonMoos advertise this process in Wipipedia]. I've added a template on the top of this page of those who come following the notice. '''<span style="background:#000">[[User:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">Michaelas10</span>]] [[User talk:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">(Talk)</span>]]</span>''' 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] seems to [http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Special:Contributions/AnonMoos advertise this process in Wipipedia]. I've added a template on the top of this page of those who come following the notice. '''<span style="background:#000">[[User:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">Michaelas10</span>]] [[User talk:Michaelas10|<span style="color:#fff">(Talk)</span>]]</span>''' 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:57, 22 December 2006
Wipipedia
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Which WP:WEB criteria doesn't it 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)
- 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)
- You seem to confuse it with some other page, WP:WEB is a confirmed policy. 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)
- 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)
- Here [1] it was downgraded from a proposed policy to a guideline.--Taxwoman 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)