Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption Junction (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. I have callously and merrily ignored the single purpose accounts, sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Proto::► 11:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Consumption Junction

Consumption Junction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Kept by default (no consensus) in January (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption junction), without much in the way of reasoning (we seem to have improved AfD since then! Hurrah!) but the article still, nearly a year later, has no reliable sources. With nothing on Factiva and only one trivial hit on GNews, that may be impossible to remedy. I'd merge and redirect to shock site, as Mailer Diablo recommended back then, but the debate is stale by now and WP:WEB has changed too. Back then a decent Alexa rank (~2k) was enough, now, it may not be, unless credible sources can be found. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge Seems little more than advertising for a website DariusJersey 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails WP:V as it relates to WP:WEB. If secondary sources can be found for this site demonstrating notabiliy, I'd be happy to change my vote. Until then though, the article in its current form is effectively an unsourced advertisement. Markeer 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:MERGE with Shock site- and "Consumption Junction" redirect to Shock site Tonytypoon 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:WEB. I'm not sure that it counts as a shock site by the general definition, since its purpose isn't just to get unsuspecting people to look at something icky. But merge there if ye must, it's better than keeping an unverifiable article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or Merge. This semi-notable site has been around for several years. Deleting it entirely would be wrong, despite the content of the site MiracleMat 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable website. Forbsey 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - possibly a violation of WP:ATK. Yuser31415 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Doesn't appear to apply. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Shock site (which already has a paragraph each on a number of shock sites). —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:09Z
    • It really isn't a shock site by the existing definition, though - a defining characteristic of a shock site is that most viewers are looking at it by accident, not because they want to see a bunch of horrible things. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a notable website. Moscatanix 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? Which parts of WP:WEB does it meet? Based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keepTho a few numbers might help to show this is the most naotable web site of this genre.DGG 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article needs to be fleshed out better, but this is certainly one of (if not THE) most well-known website of its type.--Velvet elvis81 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I'm sorry to say, but Consumption Junction were to be deleted, we would have to delete anything else along these lines. The site is rather unique in that it's not just a shock site (so it can't be merged with the Shock site article, and is in fact a flagship site among a network of other adult-oriented sites (sicksitenetwork.com), and is more popular in Alexa ratings (as of the writing of this comment, 2,088 for CJ versus 2,807 for Rotten.com). Whoever is nominating this for deletion is making a major mistake. However, I do see the need for it to be expanded and probably have sources better cited. Maqattaq 07:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do not enjoy the content, nor do I subscribe to the information presented, but if you remove them from Wiki, what next--- web-book burnings??? -- — 216.43.158.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Freedom of speech, anyone? It's a usual humor site, there's plenty on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.5.137 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

STRONG KEEP!!! Why remove it? If someone disagrees with knowledge, no matter how controversial should that knowledge be banned? Ever since 9/11 the governments of our planet have slowly taken away our freedoms.If someone is offended by this site, then it is oh so simple to just not click on. Imagine how dark our ages would be if any knowledge objected to by anyone were strikened? Checking this site out I found that it's not about porn, its about attitude!(Maybe that's what upsets some people.) -- — 67.186.28.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep!!! This site has been around for ages and it quite popular. rework the entry but leave it. -- — 71.57.155.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I see nothing wrong with the article, besides it being a bit short and lacking citations. Both of those can be fixed with a little effort. Offkorn 13:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This site has been around for a long time content can be verified. Probably the same kind of nazi who is against freedom of the internet freedom of speech called to have this deleted due to their weak pampered and otherwise sheltered way of life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.179.4.138 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC). -- — 24.179.4.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • STRONG KEEP Very unique website. It transcends typical shock sites. The wiki entry should definitely not be deleted. --Tom 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It People need these kind of websites to keep from going insane! User:RnRjUnKiE -- — 217.50.35.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • STRONG KEEP It wouldn't surprise me if the same people who keep writing hatemails to CJ aren't somehow behind wanting to delete it's entry off of Wikipedia. This website has a very large and loyal following as well as many enemies that just don't understand what CJ is trying to do. While news today is mostly bad, it is still sugar coated somewhat. On CJ you can see what really goes down, what the news networks won't show you. Some call it cruel, others call it reality.... -- — 69.136.216.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I don't believe in censorship and therefore I would like to see this article remain where it is. It does not offend anyone and merely gives information about a cotroversial yet awesome websight!--Marcatzo for you 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- — Marcatzo for you (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • since when did Wicki become the fifth reich? whats next? videos showing the burning of printouts from CJ? KeepItDanielsanw 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) -- — Danielsanw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Neutral+Comment. It doesn't violate WP:ATK, Wikipedia's not suitable for minors, and there's nothing that says that thie site can't be allowed. That being said, this is not an easy choice, as there are no references an it doesn't look encyclopedic as it it written now. Granted, no one ever bothered to put an unrefernced tag up (i'm doign that after I post this). But yeah, all these anon keeps aren't helpign matters at all, and they're almost pushing me towards delete. Nothing on google news, so this would be hard to site without referencing the cite itself... --Wizardman 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Freedom of speech need to apply to web sites also. — 71.205.210.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Does "freedom of speech" mean that you can go down to your local newspaper and demand that they print your manifesto? No? Then why does "freedom of speech" mean that Wikipedia needs to have an article about a website which can't demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's pre-existing criteria for notability? Sorry, but the freedom-of-speech issue is a total red herring. There's no freedom of speech being impinged here. When someone is preventing you from saying what you want to say using your own resources, then there's a freedom of speech issue. This isn't one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Find sources to state that CJ is as big as some users above claim it to be. According to alexa.org, it is in the mid 2000's rank or so. Thousands of websites are larger, and there surely arent thousands of article dedicated to every one of those articles that outrank CJ in terms of traffic. [1].

Furthermore, I think this discussion has been poisoned by CJ, the website users there tend to be a bunch of wanna-be tough dudes and wanna-be sick people who think it's heroic to screw with a discussion with a legitimate website like Wikipedia. I saw if this fails, we do it again, most of the supporting users have no history at all with Wikipedia, and we ought to keep our eyes wide open for shill votes and arguments pulled from thin air.

    • I'm forced to question whether you yourself are a 'supporting user' as you didn't even sign your rather bigoted comment. Offkorn 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Unless our function is to prevent those people who are too weak to prevent themselves from clicking on a site that might offend them. This is an information site, not a censor. "Google" that particular web site and WP is just one of hundreds of hits. I'm sure that any of the search engines will produce the same result. Deleting it will only serve to discredit WP as a viable resource.Bobozr 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — Bobozr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • comment I am copying this comment that was posted directly on the article. -- lucasbfr talk 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Dictionary.com is an information site. Should it have an entry for consumptionjunction? Google Maps is an information site. Should it have an entry for consumptionjunction? Instead of merely claiming that Wikipedia must cover your favored website in order to retain its credibility (because we've never heard that argument before, of course) why not produce some evidence that the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for what information to cover? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with a chainsaw. There is nothing in this discussion that even mildly comes close to qualifying as a legitimate reason to keep it. Contrary to the claim that Wikipedia is an "information site", Wikipedia is, in fact, specifically not a collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. The assertion that removing the article constitutes "censorship" is ludicrous--first because using that as a rationale for "keep" is a blatant admission that the WP article is nothing more than an advertisement, second because it clearly indicates an abject failure to understand the meaning of censorship. When WP goes out and tries to get this website shut down, then that silly argument will hold a little bit of water; until then, it's crazytalk. Tomertalk 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB: no significant news coverage, no awards, no publication. The anonymous users pouring in aren't doing a lot for their case with me, either. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stile project has an entry, and no request that its entry be deleted. CJ is at least as prominent, and shares similar history and user base (mentioned online by Howard Stern, outrage over the Nick Berg video that garnered national media attention). At most, CJ should be combined into a single page for the SickSite Network, like StileNet's entry.

GALVINIZED KEEP FROM FORMER AND DISGRUNTLED CJ WRITER! Humbly stated, for all this vaunted, anacronym laden attempted highbrow "discussion" and back and forth is clearly over an issue that is most certaintly not about what does or does not constitute a valid Wikipedia article, but rather what a minority of individuals find to be intellectually palitable. Oh how shallow the depths of the mind become in action; in the short and sweet, if CJ was a site representing a financial quarterly that just happened to pull in an estimated 1.4 million unique IP per day audience, I grately doubt there would be such a fuss to be made. Consumption Junction created a legitimate cultural phenomenon, and whether the fruits of its proliferation would be welcome in the living rooms of the happily veiled "Moral" financialy secure class is utterly irrelevant. If Wikipedia is to be a depository of information made "by actual and average/real" individuals, it is at best elitism and at worst blatant censorship/revisionism to so calously delete the existence of this very real part of american media and culture, regardless of the fact that the entry was put together extremely poorly and was in desperate need of copius amounts of re-working, most likely due to the fact that Aaron "Phil" Dinin was involved, and should probably made to wear a helmet when he leaves the house, as everything he touches on CJ instantly turns to a parodoxical mix of attempted low brow humor and hidden high society roots. I have read the words, in great majority, calling for the reinstatement of this article, and here I add mine, even though I left the site, even though I would rather practice corporal mortification than work with the current editorial administration, no one can take the site away from its millions of patrons, nor can they take away what it was, and what it may again be in the future. Carlin

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.