Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OUTeverywhere

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. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

[edit] OUTeverywhere

In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Artw 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please consider my vote on this to be neutral. Artw 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• This page should not be considered for deletion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.22.78 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One of the oldest online gay community websites in the UK. Any particular reason Artw is on this crusade against homosexuality-related articles? 217.196.231.46 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the article provides no evidence of notabilty but it does have an Alexa rank of 47,821 [1]. It would be nice if the article showed more evidence of meeting WP:WEB. It is mentioned in a newsletter by what claims to be the U.K.s largest charity for Multiple Sclerosis [2]. As a side note, I think the above comment went to far with a very blatant insinuation that the nominator has something against homosexuals. That borders on WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. OUTeverywhere is the most significant (I would guess the largest in membership) website of its kind in Britain, if not worldwide, ie a consciously non-sexual, non-commercial gay and lesbian online community. It could do with more sources, but it has already been cleaned up once (which I did, I think after the last AfD). David L Rattigan 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral OUTeverywhere does not meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. I am unsure that this is sufficient for deletion on websites that cater for minority groups due to their nature, but consistency should be maintained with the Thingbox article. Additionally, OUT is also a fully commercial site (it is no longer non-commercial) and this article could be considered advertising if it fails to meet notability requirements. Teppic74 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak DeleteKeep One reading the WP:WEB requirements, it can be seen that this entry does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB, and, furthermore, is a commercial site, and so its entry could be viewed merely as advertising. ddstretch 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the changes that have been made, it seems that now it would meet the requierments of WP:WEB, and so I would now say a Keep ddstretch 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the SinG website may meet notability requirements (though the links are somewhat trivial) but there's no evidence of meeting the requirements for the main article. Teppic74 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all keep votes. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Keep This website does meet the requirements of WP:WEB, although it needs tidying up and editing a little more, perhaps this will help justify its inclusion to those who are concerned. The need for edit, though, is not a justifyable reason for deletion. --manchesterstudent 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Someone has messaged me saying that I don't have experience on Wiki so my views may not be taken into account on this AFD. For the record, I am not a new Wiki user, I just don't like having a user page! Please see my edit history and you'll see that for the last few months I've been involved in a number of AFDs am a new page patroller and also have created and edited a number of articles, usually on LGBT issues: hence why I felt qualified to comment on this AFD. Please take into account my views: I am NOT a new user or sock puppet! --manchesterstudent 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Outeverywhere is a significant element of the UK online gay "scene". -- Flaxton 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: links have been added to the article which show its notability. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I've added some links to the page after some research to show it's notability (forgot to sign in when I made the edit though - d'oh!). -- Corky1979 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The entry is neutral, non-promotional and accurately describes the ethos of the website in question which is notable by its differewnce from other sites of a similar nature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ Jamie (talk • contribs).
• Delete: The links on the page (just about) establish notability for Silence is not Golden. They don't do so for OUTeverywhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.97.231 (talk • contribs).
• Keep: I think it has achieved some cultural relevance and thus notability: some fringe plays have references it (directly or indirectly) and it has achieved some notoriety/cultural relevance. I've added the sausage-tossing incident as being one of the most 'public' examples of its wider cultural significance. Scottkeir 23:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional neutral(???) If the site was founded as long ago as 1995 and that can be documented, that's somewhat notable in its own right for this type of site. The web was just barely starting to take off around then. I don't have an exact sense of those times but many things were being done that were quite new, and thus could be thought of as pioneering. Documentation added so far (about just about everything) is quite skimpy however; self-released press announcements aren't WP:RS. Phr (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to delete. On further research there was more happening by 1995 than I realized. Salon.com and Amazon.com both launched that year, and Amazon had VC funding in 1994. So I'll push my cutoff date for notability-by-longevity back to 1993 or so. Phr (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: How many gay social networking websites are there that enable gay people to meet away from the scene and without the usual sex obsession of gay meetup websites? One. It was also the first gay social website in the UK. Whether that happened in 1993, 1995 or 2001 is less relevant than the fact it was the first. OUTeverywhere publishes some of its media coverage. See these: Independently written and edited interview [3] in Attitude (Magazine), major page feature [4] in the UK's gay newspaper Pink Paper, and OUTeverywhere is referenced by The Sun (newspaper)'s agony aunt Dear Deidre [5] in referring people to good organisations to help with 'coming out' support. 217.36.233.38 08:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) DG
• Comment: OUT is a commercial website where paying members can meet each other. The circumstances (sex-related or not) don't make it notable, as with the thingbox site. Minor coverage in the gay press or references to the URL don't meet WP:WEB requirements. 84.92.141.190 13:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: for WP:WEB, I'd not read "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself... includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." to exclude gay press or other UK-wide (in circulation) media. Scottkeir 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It does, however, exclude trivial references, such as a quote of the URL or brief summaries. 84.92.141.190 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Even as a member of this website, I think this entry should be deleted, as the website should be treated in the same way as other community websites (e.g. the deletion of 'Thingbox', which triggered this discussion).
• Comment: The assessment of OUTeverywhere's encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia should be judged on its own merits, on facts and independent research, and not a 'battle' by users of either OUTeverywhere or Thingbox (which includes many disgruntled ex-OUTeverywhere users). There are numerous commercial websites described on Wikipedia with a notable history and/or heavy contribution to social networking. 200,000 people (mainly gay/lesbian/bi, mainly UK) have so far signed up to OUTeverywhere in its 11 year history; this can be verified by signing up and checking account numbers. 82.68.195.78 08:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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.