Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perverted-Justice.com

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perverted-Justice.com

VFD isn't a court of opinion, but it's up to law enforcement to "bust" predators, not pejorative idiots. However, an article shouldn't just go on vfd because I don't like it... I just thought I'd state my opinion.

Alexa ranking of 153,797. Not doing anything original (besides ruining people's lives, of course); feds entrap predators all the time. I don't think we should have articles on websites, with exceptions like Google, Slashdot, and Wikipedia. Not-notable. However, the writers have done a pretty good job writing the article, but that's not enough to save it from my delete vote... 24 at 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an inappropriate VfD. The website is clearly notable. It gets lots of press coverage, and has had national network coverage too. The article's well sourced with lots of credible, third-party references. No grounds for deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Grounds for deletion are that it's a non-notable website. Most websites don't deserve a place on Wikipedia, and I have a special black spot on my heart just for this one. The only reason it gets alot of coverage is to hype pedophilic fear. They entrapped 20-some predators? So what. That's really a pathetic number... they haven't done anything notable. 24 at 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Entrap? Excuse me? I think you're a little confused at the definition of entrapment. First of all, only police officers can entrap anyone, by definition. Second of all, if they were law enforcement, they wouldn't be guilty of entrapment, as they never initiate anything... all "busts" are initiated by the pervert in question. Additionally, what on earth does whether or not you LIKE them have anything to do with NOTABILITY? Press attention, positive recognition from police officers, a nationwide network, what more do you want? Fieari 01:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Then they are guilty of vigilantism. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. Not just a website, they do things. I mean, members actively testify in convicting the people they catch doing this stuff, they get press attention, they were instrumental in the rescue of a girl... how much more notable do you want? Just because they operate online doesn't mean that it's "just a website". I can't believe this is even here... Fieari 01:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very notable. Have done notable things. Have been reported on by the media. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article on verifiable notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 01:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:WEB with flying colors. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why don't most websites "deserve" a spot in Wikipedia? What a bizarre thing to say! Grace Note 02:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a good example of where the Alexa rankings fail us, (and it is going to make me rethink the use of Alexa as an indicator of encyclopedic content). The media coverage is extensive, as the article shows. func(talk) 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The website has had major press coverage and also has caught the attention of law enforcement as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly. WP:POINT. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, NPOV, sourced, etc. -Willmcw 05:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am glad the article is NPOV now after all of those edit wars and RFC's. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that this article is now NPOV and stable is directly attributable to the hard work, patience, and time of user:SlimVirgin and user:Katefan0. It was once among the most contentious articles in Wikipedia. Those two editors (SV in particular) brought together the (almost literally) warring sides, scrupulously researched and sourced the material, and achieved the goals of the project. Our feelings about the subject of the article are irrelevant, we are only adressing the quality of the article. This article is among our better efforts - odd though that may seem. -Willmcw 07:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Rhobite 05:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For the reasons stated above, site is very notable. I don't even know why this article has to go through a VfD to begin with! --Gramaic | Talk 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I too dislike them. I support the nominator, however; Alexa ranking makes a non-frivilous VfD case, and he was upfront about his position. Xoloz 06:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable website although their brand of "justice" is perverted indeed. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject of this entry is notable. El_C 07:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have had a good bit of coverage. -- Lochaber 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I recently discovered this site and found the wikipedia article to be extremely informative. The argument that there shouldn't be a wikipedia article for sites we don't like is exceedingly strange. I see no reason to differentiate wikipedia articles about websites we don't like from subject materials we don't like. (It's also worth nothing there is a wikipedia article for rotten.com and goatse.cx)
• Keep, extremely notable. Shem^(talk) 18:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, noteworthy. They took an especial dislike to me personally in one particular edit/revert war a couple of months ago, and I'll still support the existence of this article. :) --Modemac 23:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable troll organization. Almafeta 03:17, 22 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.