Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoyChat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] BoyChat
Verifiability and notability. Lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this site. - crz crztalk 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I'd consider the fact people have been jailed from this site, the FBI monitoring it, and PJ making a mention of it notability-making, however, no reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability and too few reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Withdrawn, both conditions have changed. -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)- Delete No evidence that this had been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or that it meets any of the other criteria of WP:WEB. Providing links to the site itself is not the same as citing reliable sources. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete P4k 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've added news paper article links to the article which show that journalists have been talking about BoyChat since 1998. With all the articles posted (4 or more at the time of this comment) this article easily meets WP:RS, there needs to be some integration to be truly verifiable but the shear number of media mentions allows the article to meet WP:V. Since WP:RS and WP:V are met via multiple real-world non-trivial publications which are secondary sources this article meets WP:WEB. The article still needs a lot of a work and seems to skirt around the issue that all the reliable sources say that BoyChat is chat for pedophiles. This article seems to avoid stating verifiable facts about the website. Then on a non-policy note I'd like to say that having an article on BoyChat on Wikipedia allows people to read about it without actually going there. Hopefully wikipedia can give people unbiased information (they are pedophiles) about BoyChat rather than users having to interpret their FAQ. In Summary please re-read the article, please view ALL of the references and external links, you'll the article passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB. --Quirex 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That said perhaps this should be generalized into a freespirits, boywiki, boychat article or information about those sites can integrated here. --Quirex 06:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. With new references is now compatible with WP:N. ccscott 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per notability, verifiability, lack of reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Most of the "references and external links" relate to or belong to the site itself, and much of the information in the article is sourced directly from the site. Numerous other web forums, even ones that have made the news, have failed these parameters and been deleted in the past. The "external links" section generally fails neutral point of view. Orderinchaos78 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment Please go through the news references and links (there are more than 4 of them and tell me why each fails. When you say generally you are not dealing fairly with the links that pass WP:RS. There are many news mentions and you can't ignore them. --Quirex 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon, quirex. Biggest claim to fame is a brief mention in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story? - crz crztalk 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The williamette Week is directly about them, the st louis dispatch article you have to pay for, the CNSNEWS article is about them, the xtra article is about freespirits, the toronto sun article is about them, freespirits, epifora and verizon. They have multiple media references and multiple secondary sources about just them. Then there is the christian news one which is about them but less reliable. This isn't just one. You can't ignore the other references. --Quirex 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon, quirex. Biggest claim to fame is a brief mention in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story? - crz crztalk 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per notability, verifiability, reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Jillium 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but improve citations. Notable due to Net Neutrality/Free Speech implications. When no longer notable, MERGE with Pedophile Activism. User:dfpc 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The article itself was created by BoyChat members in order to try to give themselves some sense of legitimacy. Little about the article is encyclopedic. This article falls into the category of non-notability, especially considering the origins of why the article was created and the open calls on BoyChat itself for the article to be edited against criticism by their members. Just another case study in how pedophiles try to subvert Wikipedia and it's "encyclopedic" status in order to promote themselves via mass campaigns of directed editing. XavierVE 10:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm. On the one hand, the article has been sourced. I mean, realistically, granted that BoyChat is just another internet forum and and a small fringe one at that, the nature of the board is such that it's not surprising that it would attract a small amount of notice, if only for the shock value. There's more citation here than for a lot of other small fringe entities that have articles, I guess. On the other hand... it is true that the article was created by BoyChat members to promote BoyChat. That also is why the net has been combed so thoroughly to provide references. That in itself is not reason for deletion, though. The article is hardly a paean to BoyChat, after all. But... we know that Wikipedia is a target for many types of people to promote their fringe ideologies. Simply getting an article in, even if it's not especially positive, is a "win" for these fringe ideologists, conferring a certain level of legitimacy. My experience with what I'll call the sex-with-children-normalization ideology is that this is no exception, and indeed exponents of this ideology have shown considerable determination to get this ideology certified by inclusion in the Wikipedia in various ways. This has been a problem, and the Wikipedia has been criticized with some cause as "Wikipedophilia" in the past, which is not a good thing, and could become a Very Bad Thing if a lid is not kept on it. Per WP:IAR commentors are permitted to transcend policy if doing so to prevent the Wikipedia from being hijacked for use in a way that is detrimental to the overall long-term public perception of the Wikipedia (and per WP:NOT EVIL, to prevent the Wikipedia from being hijacked to promote any evil end regardless of direct harm to the project). Is this such a case? I don't know. But I for one don't have a problem with requiring a higher standard of notability for inclusion than I would for, er, other subjects. (FWIW GirlChat was deleted earlier this year.) Herostratus 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree that is pretty obvious that pedos have combined forces to prove this article (they say so on the talk page) and topic meets WP:RS and WP:V but I don't appreciate the accusation that anyone arguing for this article or adding references to this article must be a pedo. The fact is they have already been given "legitimacy" by the news media and various govt research groups. I'm just annoyed that you're suggesting this rather than putting your foot down and pointing out that a majority of WP:NPOV edits on behalf of pedos are not WP:NPOV and only represent a minority opinion. If you want to be a good admin you should go through and apply WP:NPOV to the article and the edits which people suggest they revert for WP:NPOV. The first thing to be done is make sure all the pedo language is inline with the wikipedia pedo watch group that Herostratus is part of. Then second to make sure and watch the article when it gets edited that language isn't weakened and WP:NPOV isn't abused to promote a fringe minority opinion. This is not a case of pro and anti-abortion this is a case of a case of FRINGE opinion, this means labels like pedophile will stick because all but the very fringe agree. Please don't use weasel non-policies, please apply the real policies of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the 3 cornerstones of wikipedia. --Quirex 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't at all mean to leave the impression that anyone working on sourcing the article or arguing for its retention is anything, sorry! if I did. (I would differentiate between pedophile, a person with an affliction, and sex-with-children normalization advocate, an ideologue. The two populations overlap no doubt but each group contains many members not in the other.) As to the rest, I'm not sure exactly sure what you're on about... editors are free to comment or vote as they please according to the wisdom given them, of course. And I edit plenty of related articles as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and I am watching this one but not actively editing it at this time. Herostratus 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree that is pretty obvious that pedos have combined forces to prove this article (they say so on the talk page) and topic meets WP:RS and WP:V but I don't appreciate the accusation that anyone arguing for this article or adding references to this article must be a pedo. The fact is they have already been given "legitimacy" by the news media and various govt research groups. I'm just annoyed that you're suggesting this rather than putting your foot down and pointing out that a majority of WP:NPOV edits on behalf of pedos are not WP:NPOV and only represent a minority opinion. If you want to be a good admin you should go through and apply WP:NPOV to the article and the edits which people suggest they revert for WP:NPOV. The first thing to be done is make sure all the pedo language is inline with the wikipedia pedo watch group that Herostratus is part of. Then second to make sure and watch the article when it gets edited that language isn't weakened and WP:NPOV isn't abused to promote a fringe minority opinion. This is not a case of pro and anti-abortion this is a case of a case of FRINGE opinion, this means labels like pedophile will stick because all but the very fringe agree. Please don't use weasel non-policies, please apply the real policies of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the 3 cornerstones of wikipedia. --Quirex 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per XavierVE and others. --Gabi S. 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as Quirex and others. It is not unexpected that even a small activist group gets minor mentions; but, included citations do not convince me that notability criteria are met. — ERcheck (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
