Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livejournal's Next Top Model

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.

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}}

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Livejournal's Next Top Model

A nice sentence/paragraph under the LiveJournal article itself should be enough. This topic does not need an article unto itself. Wikipedia is not a webhost: all of this article's information belongs on ljntm.com, not here.-- PeruvianLlama^(spit) 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes something unimportant enough to not merit a page on Wikipedia? This is a place to share information, and that is what is being done here. When you search 'Livejournal's Next Top Model', there should be a place where the information is relevant and in one spot instead of scattered and overlooked in a single paragraph in the Livejournal article.

This isn't serving a webhost but a compendium of information--exactly what Wikipedia is intended for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LJNTM (talk • contribs)

• Comment/Delete WP:NOT - W not a repository of information. Content must be encyclopedic. User:Yy-bo 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment**Don't understand what isn't encyclopedic about the entry. User:LJNTM
    • Comment Similar to TV programme. They are archieved by TV stations... User:Yy-bo 22:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment They are also archived on Wikipedia. There isn't any difference. User:LJNTM

Everything stated in that page is informative. There isn't any indication of shameless self promotion on the page at all, and it is clearly being used as a means to inform people that may in fact be interested on the topic, about what/who Livejournal's Next Top Model is all about. The page is in no shape or form being used as a webhost. Livejournal's Next Top Model has been around long enough to have a page of it's own on Wikipedia. If this is not considered important enough for Wikipedia, then why bother having pages for Livejournal or America's Next Top Model?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minds been lost (talk • contribs)

• Delete per issues with verifiability, a lack of independent third party sources, and, as an extension, original research. Unless this becomes published in independent third party sources, it isn't verifiable, and there's no way to keep the article neutral. --Wafulz 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because it isn't published in a independent third party does not mean it doesn't exist. User:LJNTM
    • The threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's great that it exists, but an encyclopedia is not a primary source for information. If there are no non-trivial, independent publications, then it's impossible for us to do four things:

1. Gauge the importance
2. Verify the material presented
3. Avoid original research
4. Most importantly, maintain a neutral point of view.

I don't know if you're clicking the wikilinks I'm providing, but they link to the policies that hold for every article on the website. --Wafulz 23:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am, but I still don't understand why this is unimportant enough to not have a place on Wikipedia. I've done searches before for even more irrelevant and unimporant things, and they have a rightful place here, which Livejournal's Next Top Model also deserves. I can't give you any other sources, and if there were you'd have them, but most everything I've ever read on her is original research with little to no verifiablity. User:LJNTM

• Well, most irrelenvent/unimportant things eventually meet their demise through the same process we're going through right now. If you can't provide reliable sources and you can't verify information, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe sometime in the future if it becomes huge and gets coverage, but not now. --Wafulz 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the internet, that may never happen. I disagree with the original research rule--what's a better source for information than the original?

If it never happens, then it won't get an article. Plenty of online events/services end up getting media mentions, sometimes even through online publications.

I'll have to disagree with your original research assertion- it completely violates a policy of Wikipedia. Think of it this way: If I were to write a biography on myself, arguably I could use an autobiography as my only source because I must know what I'm talking about. However, a source like that would undoubtedly be biased and would only provide one point of view. Take a read through Wikipedia:No original research for more on this.--Wafulz 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you'd honestly read the page, you'd also see that nothing is at all biased. User:LJNTM

Actually that's not true, there are several non-neutral passages- but the point isn't just neutrality; it's that it's entirely original research. Even if the article were worth of a Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Award, we wouldn't accept it because it violates the original research policy. --Wafulz 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can provide you with links to the community, and other sites we're on if that helps.[1] [2] [3] [4]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minds been lost (talk • contribs)

• Again, the issue here is that the sources are not reliable. The majority of weblogs and submit-an-entry type sites are very unreliable because anyone can make any sorts of claims without referencing them. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)--Wafulz 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, would referrencing the original site where the competition happened, with links to the particular elimination and whatnot, make it more verifiable? I'm interested in at least building upon this enough so that when and if it does become valid, I can re-do the Wiki. User:LJNTM

• The original site isn't enough- it has to be a non-trivial publication from a reliable independent source. --Wafulz 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as completely failing WP:V. Shell ^babelfish 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Shell and all the other users. Aside from not being encyclopedic, it isn't notable either. I see that none of the winners are identified, nor is there any evidence that any of them proceeded to become models (let alone top models). Risker 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Winners have now been included, but still no evidence any of them have become professional models. Risker 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ALL of the winners are identified (they have been since the page was created), and the community is created for leizure. If taken seriously, then one will have pictures that can be added to their modeling portfolio.Minds been lost 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Shell. Wooty 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete provided not verification or reliable sources to satisfy WP:V or WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 01:41, 4 September 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.