Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwlad

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 with no bias toward recreation should reliable third party sources be found to verify notability. The debate on this page, however, does point to the need to better clarify what we mean be reliable sources and notability when dealing with editor who are not regulars on wikipedia - the process can be confusing at times. Pastordavid (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gwlad

Gwlad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Original PROD reasoning was "This article's claim of notability was unable to be verified after attempting to locate reliable secondary sources. Please cite sources or this article will be deleted." Article was then prodded again "as a non-notable internet forum of limited scope". There also seem to be conflict of interest issues at work here. – PeeJay 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  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}}
  • Delete While there were a few references to the forum listed in the article, it doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Also the article seems like more of a place to explain to social history of sorts. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps you could explain what notability is then. Or, is it more likely that, given you are Americans, you cannot see notability unless it had oil attached to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.179.13 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please refrain from the personal attacks and remain civil. If you are looking for standard of website notability, I'd suggest you read over WP:WEB. Also, please keep in mind, this is NOT an American encyclopedia, but a world-wide one. We have editors from around the world who create, edit, and yes sometimes delete articles. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I'm Welsh, so this nomination has nothing to do with nationality. – PeeJay 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
PeeJay, you're part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Agenda-ised people assuming power to which they're not entitled. This article was in development and of no harm to you or the community. Yet you chose to attack it before it became fully-fledged and a benefit for the rest of the world. You have to ask yourself why that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.221 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This would only be a 'personal attack' if you had been called 'an american'; the term used was 'americans' and is thus not personal. Can I have the pedant's shield now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.232.180 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you can stop being a smart-ass and go away. – PeeJay 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Pot, Kettle there PeeJay?


It's a bit odd suggesting that notability cannot be verified. Look at the links, citations, references in media and perhaps also consider the alternative sites offering similar coverage. If you are suggesting that rugby is not notable in Wales and that within that Gwladrugby.com is not notable as the premier Welsh rugby community then I suggest that you are not entirely objective and some moderation might be required. Constructive criticism as to structure of the content is welcome I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - notability. --Dawn bard (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- sources cited don't establish notability. --A. B. (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


I replaced the deletion comments that were removed by an anon IP, and have warned the IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not familiar with the way you deal with commenting on pages like this one so HTH... While I can understand that to those of you not familiar with Gwlad, its notability is hard to establish, I'd also point out that by the site's very nature it is likely that, while meeting the spirit of them, its notability will be impossible to establish according to your normal guidelines. Newspapers are not in the habit, for example, of crediting sources when to do so would make it apparent that the resulting articles are simply rehashes of someone elses content. Sites (such as the BBC's website) are likely to actively avoid mention of or credit to a site such as Gwlad when they own and run another competing (but far less well-regarded) site themselves. It is probably also beneficial to Gwlad that it can, to some degree, "fly beneath the radar", as that way it is less likely to be overrun with trolls following controversial events concerning Welsh Rugby. However, to those "in the know", there is no question that the site is indeed notable -- to have the chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union sign up to the site and agree to answer fans' questions on a particularly controversial subject, for example, as has happened (the equivalent of having the CEO of the NFL come on to a US fan site, I guess), or to be frequented by various semi-anonymous ex-international players, is surely a sign of that. I think that must make it a candidate for the application of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules as far as the notability *guidelines* go. As a user of the site, however, I think I might prefer that you ignore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.160.11 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB due to lack of in-depth coverage by secondary sources. There are millions of message boards on millions of topics, many of them quite popular, but we don't include topics on the basis of popularity. Things are notable if they are covered by reliable, independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and assume good faith? Why don't you give people a chance to find the sauces they need?

We are assuming good faith actually, however their needs to be verifiable sources to show the site's notability. Everything so far has been hearsay, however as Dhartung said, there is a lack of in-depth coverage by secondary sources, which is what is needed to show the site meets WP:WEB. As for ignoring all rules, granted that is true, however there are a few rules, such as the basics that an article needs to have in order to be listed on Wikipedia. Basically, you can't ignore not having sources, notability, etc. smiply because the article will be deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Seems inconsistent. You have pages on some of the most obscure bands, offshoot bands and artists one could care (or not) to ever hear on Wikipedia. Other than connections, spectacularly un-notable. Gwlad isn't notable for popularity, it's that it's at the forefront of a national sport in terms of breaking news, opinion and knowledge. I think you should perhaps question the motivation of the original deletion proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect a connection between the dissentors in this matter. The original opponent clearly appears to be a gog toe-baller, With an agenda. I'd cite conflict of interests in this suggestion for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.221 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my userpage properly. I'm an avid fan of the Scarlets, and I've been to numerous Wales international rugby matches, so my interests in this matter are purely policy-based. The notability of this forum has not been established by independent sources, and so it does not meet the notability criteria. End of. – PeeJay 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Which hardly demonstrates or proves an agnostic motivation to proposing this deletion. You're an avid fan of the Scarlets ans Wales, you say, and clearly a big Web user. Gwlad is the place where those two things, in a wider context, come together. You are unlikely to be ignorant of Gwlad's existence given your interests. If you were independent or a supporter of the site you would be unlikely to put it forward for deletion unless you are some sort of narrow-minded Wiki evangelist. That would be bit sad for someone just out of short-pants, but it's either that or a prejudice against Gwlad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong. I'd never heard of Gwlad before yesterday. – PeeJay 11:15, 8
Then perhaps you should familiarise yourself with it before you propose deletion. You might find that it's of interest, given your apparent passion for the content.

December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point though. Just because I think something is good doesn't mean it deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. You seem to have misunderstood the grounding principles behind Wikipedia, so I believe this conversation is over. – PeeJay 13:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you've missed the point. Irrespective of the rules, I don't believe you would have proposed this for deletion if you were genuinely interested in Welsh rugby. Even if you had never seen the site before, you would have taken a look and perhaps even suggested how the entry could have been made "acceptable". If you were uninterested in Welsh rugby I could understand your interest and your proposal for deletion. But as someone who is apparently "interested" it doesn't really stack up. Either you have a problem with Gwlad as an entity or you have a disturbing obsession with applying Wikipedia "principles". There are thousands of entries out there which are candidates for deletion. Seeing as this one is relating to an area of interest to you, why don't you do something more constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So you're criticising both my interest in Welsh rugby and my commitment to making Wikipedia the best it can possibly be? Face it, your forum is not as notable as you would like to think. I mean, it's not like we're petitioning to get the entire forum deleted from the internet, it's just that it's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. – PeeJay 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm questioning your interes. If you're an "Avid Scarlets Fan", then why aren't you at Stradey Park this evening for what is a massive match for the Scarlets?
No, I'm questioning your motives for recommending this for deletion. And yes, I would also question your commitment to making Wikipedia "the best it can possibly be". If Wikipedia is the "best it can be" simply through the blind application of some fairly rudimentary principles then it will just become another edited resource on the internet. The main problem with Wikipedia these days is a self-appointing community effectively acting as a censor. One of the great things about Web 2.0 and the reason Wikipedia grew so spectacularly is that content should only be moderated at the margins with users defining what becomes popular and rises to the top. Rubbish tends to disappear without trace. I've got no problem with trying to standardise structure and format. If things were recommended for deletion because they were never accessed, that would make a lot of sense.
Ultimately I don't really care if Gwlad has Wikipedia page or not. It's the sort of thing I'd like to find on Wikipedia. But then again in Wikipedia becomes too policed, something else will replace it. It's the content that matters.
(You could work on your personal style, too, but I'm sure that will come with experience.)
Oh, and the Scarlets are 10-9 up, seeing as you haven't made the game.
Does Wikipedia have a "mission statement" or equivalent?

"things are notable if they are covered by reliable, independent sources. --Dhartung" ??? WTF? Okay so this is your game and these are your rules, but FFS mun, get a grip. The relevance of Gwl@d as a social community transcends the strict limitations which are applied if you think Facebook is all there is to social networking. Lurk on Gwl@d for a while and see what actually goes on. Newboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.253.253 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Turgid, self-referential mess of an article not remotely written in an encyclopedic style.  RGTraynor  00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted by Cupking13: Hi (sorry to butt in her, but I just wanted to add that I'm currently trying to address this particular point. Whether my writing style is still turgid, I'm not best placed to answer).

Despite the article's assertions of notability, its Alexa rank is just short of two million, which is outrageously scanty. Many of the references are to websites and not to reliable sources, and of the two that do, one does not in fact mention this website, and the other cites it as the source of a petition drive. The anon IP defenders would have better success finding genuine procedural grounds upon which to keep this article, instead of attacking the nom. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V.  RGTraynor  00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • comment - I have done a quick search of archived newspapers, and have found only three articles with "Gwlad" and "website" mentioned in the title or lead paragraph. One mentions a tongue in cheek proposal on Gwlad to exhume Carwyn James, one says "As expat Welsh rugby fans in London and beyond all know Gwlad is an indispensable source of news and views on the state of what apparently is still our national game" (The Western Mail, 2001-11-17, James Pritchard's), one talking about a poll conducted on Gwald (only about three sentences long). Judge for yourself, but even that Western Mail article probably stretches the limit of meeting the notability guideline. - Shudde talk 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*Comment: "Gwlad Rugby" on Google UK, minus its own website, returns 128 hits. [1].  RGTraynor  07:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC) And "gwladrugby" on Google UK, minus its own website, returns 916 hits, what's your point?
*Comment: The website is more commonly referred to as simply 'Gwlad', and rarely the full title of 'Gwlad rugby'. It is a popular rugby website and forum, I find it hard to believe this is genuinely being disputed. I think the content of the article should be edited to suit the Wikipedia style, not deleted.

[2]

  • Delete per reasons given above Q T C 13:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per CSD A7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - sorry, it's definitely spam, albeit Welsh spam. How about creating an article for Welsh wikipedia on this subject - it would be acceptable there because of its national relevance. Deb (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So it would still be 'spam' but 'OK spam' there ? Strange place indeed Wikipedia. Thanks for indicating that such an entry *does* have relevance/acceptability somewhere on part of Wikipedia though. I wonder if it also becomes notable there (or slightly notable). It either is or isn't.

Can you define "spam" in this context please?
Self-advertisement is spam. – PeeJay 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was asking the poster. Thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
To explain my suggestion, the title of the website is in the Welsh language - this in itself is unusual. Presumably contributions in the Welsh language would also be encouraged. Anything that fosters the use of the Welsh language is potentially relevant to the Welsh-language wikipedia. Deb (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree it would be relevant to the Welsh-language wikipedia. Although predominantly English language content Welsh posting is welcome. It is rather broader than Welsh language, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark m owen (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay, please make your mind up what it is you believe is wrong (yeah ! that too! and that!) - I believe you have taken the response(s) to your original nomination for delete quite personally - not what one would expect from an editor as distinguished and as disinterested (neutral) as yourself.

  • Keep very notable Welsh rugby forum / website, known to almost every rugby supporter in Wales and well known in the international rugby community. Obviously needs significant rewriting though. Rls (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwlad has decided to remove itself from Wikipedia as Wikipedia is shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.21.236 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep Interesting debate, though some Wiki regulars might like to reference this internal link, and comment upon it's sustainability, given it's wholly self-referential and self-promoting nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForumPlanet Please note the lack of outside "notability".
Comment: I agree that the ForumPlanet article is poorly sourced, and shows little evidence of notability; perhaps it should be deleted. However, that's irrelevant to the discussion of this article, which is what we're discussing here. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Terraxos (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be written in a sterile nature compared to what was originally composed for the Gwlad entry, but in the light of the link provided above, an entry here is justified. There may be few external references on the current Gwlad entry, but as was stated before, few journalists (who get paid for their copy) are likely to credit an anonymous website as their source. Notability is barely possible under these circumstances, yet there are references.Bluebook944 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an SPA. No other edits. - Shudde talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note the creation of the article Gwladgold by User:Gwladnewboy. It has now been redirected to Gwlad twice... Stephenb (Talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was ready to support deletion here, but after looking through the sources that have been provided, I think this website does (just about) pass the notability requirements of WP:WEB and WP:RS. Coverage of the site in secondary sources is sketchy and marginal, but it does seem to be significant, as shown by the story about it organising a 6,000 signature petition to the Welsh Rugby Union in 2002. It's clearly the biggest and most influential site when it comes to rugby in Wales, and ultimately those factors lead me to (marginally) support keeping this article. Terraxos (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not meet any of the three crieria for as per WP:WEB. (1) None of the references qualify as "non-trivial published works." (2) The site hasn't won any well-known awards. (3) The content does not appear to be published independently of the creators. VandalCruncher (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep just notable enough, sourcing really needed though. RMHED (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable web forum.Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2007 (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.