Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com

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 of the debate was there's clearly no consensus to delete. Even if I don't count the "votes" that weren't signed, Mr Denni. Harrumph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lissaexplains.com

Lissaexplains.com was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com/2005-08-28.

• Delete Fiftythree 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page, Advertising and self promotion. The article was 90% written by the girls mother and fellow administrator of the site. Hongkongdongle 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have no idea why this page was nominated. Notable, verifiable. From the site: My site has been featured recently in the Washington Post, and several other large newspapers here in the United States including the Chicago Tribune and the Wall Street Journal. It has also been featured in several newspapers all over the world, most recently (May, 2004) in the Malaysia Star. Ifnord 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, I'm puzzled by the nomination. The web site clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines for website notability as evidenced by high Alexa rank plus media attention by national newspapers. I note the nominator and several of the delete votes have only edits on this specific AfD which makes me suspicious of puppetry. Ifnord 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way do you assert this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines? Nowhere is Alexa rank mentioned. If this site's Alexa rank qualifies it for Wikipedia inclusion, then you, Ifnord, have a lot of work to do - there are 29,999 other sites to be added. You'd better get cracking. And then, at the end of that process, you will have made Wikipedia into a Web directory, in direct contravention of the guideline you cited. -Ikkyu2 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Aside from Alexa rank, the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines. Media attention suggests notability (CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post). Thomas 9:17 AM 28 January 2006
        • Disagree. The media attention was likely trivial puff pieces about a trivial, non-notable site. -Ikkyu2 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You don't need to hypothesize what the articles are "likely" to be. They are linked to from the article, and you can read them. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 30,713 rank on Alexa, great for a website made by a child. Ruby 14:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page -- If you view the history of the article, most was written by a relative. J8675309 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This newly created user has made three WP contributions, all to this AfD. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. Children creating website is something uncommon. --Terence Ong 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The POV was pointed out in the last discussion about deletion, and most of it was written by a relative- if it's not popular enough to be written by someone that visits the site on their own accord, it probably shouldn't be here.
• Delete per the above unsigned comment. --kingboyk 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Re-voting as the discussion has progressed and re-opened. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. -Ikkyu2 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete you gotta be kidding me. Eusebeus 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: An earlier AfD TimBentley 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think an entry made by the girls mother should stay here really. The girls mother has been co-producing the website all this time, so it's not like it's entirely the work of a child, and the mother was probably also the one to call up the newspapers to do articles on her daughter.
• Delete an 11-year-old kid with a website might have been big news in 1997, but it's nothing particularly special now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the site is pretty notable, I have cut out most of the advertising. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ifnord. TimBentley 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrokey44, most of the cruft has been culled out. Calwatch 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just like last time it was nominated. Denni ☯ 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - website appears notable enough -- Francs2000 10:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, notable. // paroxysm (n) 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Moving new comments to the bottom) NOTE: UNSIGNED VOTES WILL NOT BE COUNTED. Denni ☯ 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 Its a good site. Very popular as well as well moderated.
• Keep. Thomas 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 For reason stated by Ifnord. 500,000 + google hits seems notable enough to me.
  • Comment After further reading, this smells like a personal vendetta against the Web site author to me. Addie 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrienne.daniels (talk • contribs)
• Keep. LissaExplains 3:58 PM 27 January 2006
  • Note from Lissa at Lissaexplains.com One requesting deletion is actually a moderator that I removed from my forum considering his heinous behavior - the site was created by me alone, and the article was written by members of my forum. Relative is no longer a moderator, and really has as much to do with the Web site as all moderators do. I, personally, have never touched the article, and only recently noticed a slanderous comment within the article posted by two members who left my forum. I ran an IP search within my forum, and four users here are ex-forum members. This is an obvious case of trolling. 3:58 PM EST 27 January 2006
    • Comment I would also like to note that my above comment was deleted, and please, I do not want this immaturity to play out on the Wikipedia Web site. This is further proof of any personal issues held towards me, and please, if you have a problem with me, e-mail me, do not disrupt the credibility of the AfD process. 5:52 PM EST 27 January 2006
• Keep Notable, verifiable per CNN, Washington Post. Jason 9:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Media coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Powers 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• whoah shit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.242.89 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom TheRingess 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - meets website criteria #1. —ERcheck @ 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page - how does the second voter (who didn't sign) know it was "90% written by the girls mother"? --M@thwiz2020 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Numerous articles in major media means this site meetsWP:WEB. Another one of the Washington Post's articles about the site is here. -- Dragonfiend 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep Notable, but oozes vanity... The Deviant 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable website with media coverage thus meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per prevoius AfD. Lbbzman 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it easily meets WP:WEB, plus previous AfD still stands - no additional information / rationale offered. Actually, I'm calling this a speedy keep as nominator offered no reason whatsoever for deletion. We really need more than a signature. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, nominator's only edits have been to create this AfD. Turnstep 05:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ikkyu2. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are three links right on the page to notable sources (Including CNN!) It's certain notable enough for wikipedia. --light darkness 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It might "ooze vanity," but that's what the "edit this page" button is for. The website is clearly notable. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per comments above. If I was a cynic I'd say another case of "It didn't get deleted last AfD, lets keep nominating it til it does"....but as I'm not a cynic I wont.... Jcuk 08:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am a cynic. Wisco 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Just as a site is made by a child doesn't make it notable. ComputerJoe 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• This one is easier than most. Usually a lengthy search involving some effort is required to find the non-trivial published works from independent sources. In this case, they are handily linked to at the bottom of the article. (The article could be improved further by citing the initial article in the Australian newspaper, as well.) I've read the subset of the news articles that are actually legible, and they are not mere incidental mentions or web directory listings. The primary WP:WEB criterion is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Meets WP:WEB. Nomination seems in bad faith. Englishrose 12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Owner of the site tries to influence the voting. User Jessily that voted for delete received a per direct ip ban on her site:

http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia1.jpg Another user that editted the article was punished also: http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia2.jpg Site owner admits it on the second screen. Two more users that either voted for delete or editted the article also went in problems. I think that the voting will be disturbed by these actions. If her site was good enough there was no need for these actions. This plus the other reasons stated above are clear enough for me.

Site owner banned my ip since she discovered my ip while i was editting my vote without being logged in. What a democratic voting proces! Dave83 16:23, 29 January 2006 (CET)

Comment: The process you are participating in is neither democratic nor a 'vote' in the sense that you are using the word. Refer to WP:DP for more. -Ikkyu2 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Englishrose per above comment, bad faith nomination. Above user, please stick to the issue, which is the article in question.Jason 1128, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have heard of this website, and it clearly meets notability guidelines. Dave83, there is nothing wrong with banning a person who vandalized the site article from the site forums. SYCTHOS^talk 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It wasn't vandalism. The article was updated to reflect the current state of the forum, and was factually accurate. Lissa is definately trying to influence the outcome of the vote by retaliating against those that vote against the article. I resonded to her first comment, but it was deleted. I pointed out that she was lying in her comments here, and since it was deleted, I feel as though she is being allowed to say what she wants (whether accurate or not), and nobody else is allowed to provide the truth- either because it will be removed or we will be retaliated against. If that's not "disrupting the credibility of the AfD process", I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs)

• Keep. If CNN did an article, notable enough for me. --maru (talk) contribs 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. I'm also going to transfer the comment stuff to the talk page. Stifle 18:59, 31 January 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.