Content deleted Content added
Retired username (talk | contribs) WP:V obviously does say that, though |
→[[Wipipedia]]: Comment |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
*'''Comment'''The case against the article seems to be that WP:V allegedly requires secondary sources. In favt, WP:V says no such thing. The relevant policy is WP:NOR, which says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Anyone reading the version of the article as it was at the point when the AfD started (as opposed to subsequent edits) an see that that was exactly what was done. All we need to do is to restore that version and the arguments for deletion collapse.--[[User:Brownlee|Brownlee]] 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''The case against the article seems to be that WP:V allegedly requires secondary sources. In favt, WP:V says no such thing. The relevant policy is WP:NOR, which says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Anyone reading the version of the article as it was at the point when the AfD started (as opposed to subsequent edits) an see that that was exactly what was done. All we need to do is to restore that version and the arguments for deletion collapse.--[[User:Brownlee|Brownlee]] 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**WP:V says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
**WP:V says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*** I invite people to exmine the article '''as it was at the point of AfD, not as subsequently edited''' and assess the references for themselves.--[[User:Brownlee|Brownlee]] 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:52, 14 May 2007
Wipipedia
Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Somewhat sophisticated sockpuppetry is suspected to have occurred in this AFD. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport, but please contact me as some possible sockpuppets here are not listed on that page yet. --W.marsh 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
- There is no policy requirement to judge an article based on an initial revision. 131.181.251.66 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's encouraged to improved articles during debates. If the article has been improved during the debate, then it should be judged by its improved status, and those who judged it by an earlier one may want to check if their concerns have been met. The way it was earlier can of course explain comments that are not now evident. We 're not debating which revision should stand. DGG 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to remove silly stuff like "it attracts visitors from around the globe", but I got reverted, because allegedly the article should not be edited when at AfD. Every website attracts visitors from around the globe, so I don't see any point in writing that. bogdan 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that if an article is being AfD'd because it allegedly lacks references, it is utterly unacceptable to delete the references in the article during the AfD process. If anyone looks at the article as it was, he or she can come to a conclusion about the adequacy of the references; if the have been deleted, this is impossible.--Brownlee 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Extreme BDSM Delete 900 articles in 3 years? Hardly notable. - Francis Tyers · 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know we judged web sites by size. It seems to be the best site covering the subject matter with the relatively highest standards.DGG 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of journals which cover the topic of fetishism to a much higher standard. We judge websites by the WP:WEB notability criteria, which this site fails. - Francis Tyers · 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know we judged web sites by size. It seems to be the best site covering the subject matter with the relatively highest standards.DGG 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no (or whatever the safe word is) delete--Docg 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Which policy?--Brownlee 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability bogdan 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anyting in that policy that speaks to spamming, and "notability" is only mentioned in passing. Are you sure you have the right policy? Because this is clearly verifiable: Here it is!. WP:V allows the citation of selfpublished sources about themselves.Grace Note 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability bogdan 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which policy?--Brownlee 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. WooyiTalk to me? 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- if you include vandalism and reverts of vandalism, yes, there were over 100 edits :-) bogdan 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep the debate rational. There are far, far more than a dozen edits in most months.--Taxwoman 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep per Wooyi. Chris 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Could be kind of notable with the articles there. Corpx 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. WooyiTalk to me? 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. WooyiTalk to me? 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. — Pious7TalkContribs 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That misses the point. Three times it has been decided that WP:V is not violated; it is not right for a few editors to claim that it is.--Taxwoman 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's been stated that it's not, but the horse only has four legs, regardless of how often people say it has six or fifty. If you'd like to show V is not violated, just provide secondary sources-and I betcha this discussion will never happen again! Otherwise, stating "But it's doesn't violate V! Really!" doesn't change the fact that, if no secondary sources are available, yes it does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- That misses the point. Three times it has been decided that WP:V is not violated; it is not right for a few editors to claim that it is.--Taxwoman 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, some people may believe that it fails WP:V. That doesn't mean that it does. There is no requirement to have secondary sources; they are just preferred.--Taxwoman 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just showed above that secondary sources are required... Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete per WP:WEB -- fails our inclusion criteria. Jkelly 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If, after all this time, there are no reliable sources, there probably won't be any. Corvus cornix 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Absolutely no reason presented to delete this except to burn for the sake of burning. It's perfectly verifiable: Here it is! How easy was that?! Grace Note 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- By that logic we could have an article on any of several billion webpages that can be verified to exist... but we're not a directory, we're an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It still fails WP:WEB. From what I remember, it was argued last time around that the content is worth keeping due to being hosted on the "London Fetish Scene" website. That's unpersuasive - if we (still!) don't have any reliable, substantial, independent sources about Wipipedia itself, we simply don't have anything to base an article on. Sandstein 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
- There are currently two "cited" (I use the word loosely) assertions, and five uncited assertions. Attempts to remove the uncited assertions are met with a) refusal to cite, b) restoration of the assertions.
- From WP:V, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."
- There are currently no reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS, or any sane definition) in the article. See below for more details.
- From WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
- This is policy. This article does not rely on any third-party published sources with a reputation for accuracy, giving the breakdown, we have: 1) palavrasecoisas.blogspot.com — a blog in Portuguese, 2) surch.co.uk — a search engine, 3 and 4) The "news" section of Poor Mojo — which styles itself as an "online literary journal", but appears to be a self-published website.
- There are a further three links in the references section: a) A link to Wikia, b) A link to a blog, c) A link to a site which is "... set up to allow people to post what they find relevant in the news and general interests of people." [5]
- From WP:V, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
- The article currently contains no reliable third-party sources.
- From WP:V, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. "
- Of all of the references, this applies to: 1, 2, 3, 4, a, b, c (that's all of them).
- From WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable."
- From WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
- Blogs do not have a reliable publication process. Anyone who doubts this can try signing up for blogger, livejournal or whatever and then posting "Wipipedia is a dreadful site that is run by people who think lions are made out of hats. On it there are people who yell at their wristwatches in the street and those who encourage clouds to attack children". Sites such as CodeWolf do not have a reliable publication process, sure it is possible for the owner to remove the links, but he isn't a specialist in the field of Sexology, he is a software consultant.
- From WP:WEB, "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content"
- From WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
- This is not true.
- Blogs are trivial.
- News items in news aggregators are trivial.
- Search engine results are trivial.
- This is not true.
- From WP:WEB, "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization."
- Not true, it does not pass.
- From WP:WEB, "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"
- Not true.
- Now lets have a look at some reliable sources:
- Google Scholar: 5 results for "Wipipedia", none of which refers to Wipipedia, the first is a mis-citation of Wikipedia, the remaining 4 seem to be mis-hits.
- Google Books: 1 result for "Wipipedia" in Kim H. Veltman (2006) Understanding New Media: Augmented Knowledge & Culture (Calgary : University of Calgary Press). Again, this is a mis-citation of Wikipedia.
- Science Direct: No results
- Cite Seer: No results
- - Francis Tyers · 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Francis' reasoning above. That's a very thorough analysis and it unquestionably in my mind establishes that we should not have this article. It's a tiny wiki that we only seem to have an article on because some of its members are long-time contributors here. Sorry, folks. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThe case against the article seems to be that WP:V allegedly requires secondary sources. In favt, WP:V says no such thing. The relevant policy is WP:NOR, which says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Anyone reading the version of the article as it was at the point when the AfD started (as opposed to subsequent edits) an see that that was exactly what was done. All we need to do is to restore that version and the arguments for deletion collapse.--Brownlee 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --W.marsh 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I invite people to exmine the article as it was at the point of AfD, not as subsequently edited and assess the references for themselves.--Brownlee 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --W.marsh 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)