Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe

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 of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Chick Bowen 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpinnWebe

Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was not just "hosted on SpinnWebe" like SpinnWebe is somesort of free webspace (like geocities). It was designed, hosted, updated, edited, etc etc as a part of SpinnWebe (which now hosts AAA A1 captions in the same vein)JohnRussell 05:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as notable per my comments on the matter before. Spinn has not asked to to do anything in this matter, he doesn't even know me. I am just a fan who has been going to the site for 10 years and it's pop press coverage on the DFC internet meme should be enough to keep it. Also, I don't see a big 'influx' of wikipedia people that have never voted before makeing their thoughts known on this issue, I see mostly people of the wikipedia community who were late in hearing about a vote.JohnRussell 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was hosted on SpinnWebe but that in itself does not make it notable. Is there some criteria in WP:WEB that this site meets? Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I did a quick check on Alexa and got 664,000 or so, which is even worse than the 400,000 or so it had when it was deleted earlier this month. --Ruby 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alexa rank (664,215!), possibly speedy if this is a recreation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that it meets WP:WEB with criteria 1 (Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address) and 3 (The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators). Bobby1011 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Trivial coverage, etc" is an exclusion to Criteria 1 which would indicate you prefer a Delete vote. Your comment is a bit confusing. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment How right you are. I misread the criteria. Bobby1011 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable per Bobby1011. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as re-creation, unless one of the supporters wants to dispute that it is a re-creation.--Gjc8 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There are many people doing just that below - does that change your vote? DenisMoskowitz 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Gjc8. Bobby1011 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a meatpuppet, and I think we should toss that accusation around less casually. There have been a number of recent AfD nominations of sites that were once extremely notable, but less so lately—this is one, Mirsky's Worst of the Web is another. These are historically important sites for the web, and I think they deserve keeping on those grounds—otherwise, as sites slip into the past, we'll be deleting our communal memory too. There's a difference netween brand-new sites no one's heard of—the situations WP:WEB is really designed for—and once-notable sites that are now history. What's suck.com's Alexa rating nowadays? What will it be in five years? It doesn't matter, it's significant as an important aspect of the web's development. SpinnWebe was once very well-known and even got some mainstream press, but its notoriety was largely in pre-google days and it isn't very well-known now except for the Dysfunctional Family Circus flap. Admittedly, it never had the following of Suck, and the suggestion to merge it into the Dysfunctional Family Circus isn't totally off-base, but on balance I say keep. —rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Footnote: For the record, see an "orphaned" debate here. Some of the "meatpuppets" in that discussion, such as Zompist and SchuminWeb, have a solid history of edits in article space. Schuminweb makes a reasonable defense of the removal of the speedy template here. You may or may not agree with his reasoning, but let's assume good faith, please—this is not the usual gang of idiots on some gamer clan board being trotted out to defend teh h0nor of their site. —rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Footnote 2: SchuminWeb used a script to rally a get-out-the-vote drive for this second AfD from the following Wikipedians:
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rodii (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zompist (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:DenisMoskowitz (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TreyVanRiper (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JohnRussell (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spinn (AWB assisted message)
  • 18:58, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Notmydesk (top)
--Ruby 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop implying there's something untoward going on here. He alerted interested people who posted on the speedy delete page. I see nothing sinister in that. --Spinn 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing implied, other than evidence of my assertion of meat-puppetry and a full disclosure for the admin who eventually closes this AfD, assuming it's not speedied overnight. --Ruby 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should add my name to the list as well, since this page was brought to my attention through a discussion concerning the deletion. Of course, since SchuminWeb does not know me, nor zompist or notmydesk, personally, the accusation of script-use is pretty serious especially when it can be easily disproven. Having an active community, especially consisting of people who have their own extensive entries in Wikipedia, should not count as evidence of untoward behavior, but actually gives credence to the argument that the site does in fact hold relevance. I find it even more ironic that two people involved in this discussion are people who at one point or another had personal run-ins with spinn, yet one of them wrote the article and the other voted for the original deletion. Personally, I see this article not necessarily simply falling under web content, but rather a description of the history of an influential and active home site of an active, influential web personality. While spinn may be no Lawrence Lessig in his Alexa ratings or Technorati listing, his influence on many other personalities like Lore Sjoberg, Zompist, and notmydesk should not be discounted. Maybe it should just be rewritten to be about him instead of referencing his through his home website. --Leth
I'd consider "meat-puppetry" as untoward, if I understand the term. I'm interpreting it as your being under the impression I'm just telling my friends to post in the article's defense. It's especially ironic, since Schumin is specifically not a friend, given the amount of abuse I've heaped on him in the past. --Spinn 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The original Afd was rushed through on 5 delete votes (including Elkman who, though having a perfect right to vote, did not disclose his personal interest), and was based on a misstatement (that Spinn wrote the Wikipedia article). This is not a shining moment in Wikipedia consensus. Instead of defending this rush job, calling names, and relying on inappropriate criteria, I'd love to see the Delete people acting like encyclopedia editors and making an actual case.Zompist 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm obviously a bit biased, but I think my logic is sound. For each point:
    • Criteria for inclusion. It meets #1 of WP:WEB. Discussion should really be over at this point. I don't understand why it isn't. (By the way, Bobby1011 said it meets #3 as well, but to my knowledge it doesn't.) Yes, it's because of the Dysfunctional Family Circus, but the articles and interviews aren't about the DFC concept in general, but the SpinnWebe version. When asked in an online chat about "internet parodies", Bil Keane talked about the SpinnWebe version specifically. These are not simple site listings or trivial coverage. These were people from Associated Press and Wired calling me and asking me for quotes. And yes, that's SW's one claim to fame, but there's no requirement that all aspects of the web site be publicized to confer notability.
    • Alexa ranking. Immaterial. Alexa is a research tool, it's not a stated standard for inclusion in WP:WEB. It's a means to determine if it meets the guidelines, but it doesn't matter, the previous point already established it. Besides, what about ground-breaking web sites that no longer exist? They have an Alexa ranking of nothing, should we delete those, too? What's XOOM's Alexa rating? What's The Spot's Alexa rating?
    • Speedy deletion. Yes, the article was deleted, and I understand that. As it stood, a neutral third party could not immediately see the article met WP:WEB. Yes, it was reinstated with identical information--it probably shouldn't have been. However, having been alerted to the issue, I added the detail that brought it under inclusion guidelines. This is all in line with Guide to deletion: If you disagree with the consensus (third paragraph). This article is no longer a candidate for speedy deletion.
So, yes, the site is a shadow of its former glory. But Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It had glory, with ample (and provided) evidence to support it, and thus clearly meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. --Spinn 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Spinn above, and if you don't think he's a fair witness, pretend I said it. The site was highly notable in my rememberance of the web nearly 10 years ago (my god it's been that long). If notability is measured substantially against current Alexa rankings and other subjective and moving criteria, then every site will eventually be NN and deletable (save a lot of disk space.). If we get rid of Spinnwebe, let's pitch TOTSE, maybe Suck.com, how about Seanbaby and Old Man Murray, they haven't updated their sites in ages... remember, if a website doesn't consist of 100,000 bored teens and undertasked office workers posing Photoshops, snarky blog entries and belabored in-jokes ad-infinitum it's non-notable. KWH 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to see one of the Delete editors come up with an actual argument as to why WP:WEB criteria 1 is not met. KWH 07:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Dysfunctional Family Circus. The tiny details of what his personal Web site featured are unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This page was already listed for deletion, the vote was to delete. The webmaster (Spinn) and others associated with the site rallied people to recreate the article (see the number of blank red lines voting in the speedy delete page and this guy apparently just registered to vote in that page [1]). It was recreated almost exactly as it was you can see a copy of the old page here and because it was created almost exactly as it was before it did not have significant improvement and thus qualified for a speedy deletion. I put a speedy delete template and that as well was removed by User:SchuminWeb (as Ruby pointed out, that user also participated in Vote Stacking and many of those voting keep here got his messages see his page history [2]. He has also been accused of vote stacking before see his talk page specifically the comment by User:Gorgan almighty). I did not want to have a revert war so I just left it like that and advised the admin who closed the previous afd about the situation. They also rallied around another page I put up for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirsky's Worst of the Web) and User:Notmydesk made a snide remark "kids these days..." along with a remark by User:Zompist "According to your user page, you were eight years old when Mirsky created his page. You don't know what was notable then" (by the way, that user put up his own site in another Wikipedia page Zompist.com). Wikipedia is not for ads for websites and trying to break with wikipedia policy to perserve this article is ludicrous. With regards to DFS, even the article itself states that the website did not create DFS. Quote from article "While the Dysfunctional Family Circus concept was not original to SpinnWebe...." so then what is your website notable for?--Jersey Devil 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You're not helping your case by mistating things that are easily checked. I didn't create (or in any way affect) the article about my site. And of course it’s no coincidence that people will look at other Afds you are doing. I have nothing to do with Mirsky’s. The comment about your age is a reminder that many of us were around on the web in that period, when you could have no personal experience of what was notable or not. Do you have some other reason that your opinion about the noteworthiness of 1995 websites is worth listening to? As for Spinnwebe's notability, see my points above. Zompist 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, if you're going to argue about whether or not to take down a page, shouldn't you argue based on the merits of the page itself, and less on the people placing votes, or resurrecting a page? You're guilty of argument ad hominem, an obvious logical fallacy. Secondly, I take offense that you claimed I joined Wikipedia only to vote to keep Spinnwebe. You might have noticed my talk page where someone thanked me for my participation in a discussion regarding Citadel BBSes. I only recently created my user page because, frankly, I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia, and frankly, I didn't really want to create my own home page originally, because I don't really think I'm all that important. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JD, perhaps the reason people "rallied" against your suggested deletion of Mirsky's page is that you were off-base in suggesting it be deleted, based as it was on a simple counting of yahoo hits and not taking into account anything regarding the history and notability of the site itself -- much as you're doing with spinn's page. And, frankly, if you're going to take me to task for me "snidely" saying "kids these days..." you might want to take a number of others here to task for snidely calling myself and others "meat-puppets."--Notmydesk 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment For those viewing this page check out this page on the Spinnwebe Forum "Reinstatement campaign anyone?". [3] I knew this was what was going on, now we have the proof. As a matter of fact, in that thread Spinn says "Well, here's the Google cache version of the page, anyway. It's a shame, I could recreate all this fairly easily, but I think it's bad form if I do it myself.". So it is infact confirmed that they just c&ped back the same old page that was deleted (many sites make copies of old wikipedia pages). It wasn't 'improved' and thus the speedy deletion template was warranted.--Jersey Devil 09:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I won't keep commenting here, but I do want to note a few things: (a) I can't speak for anyone else I resent the implication that I'm here because Schumin "recruited" me. I have zero interest or involvement in SpinnWebe; I read AfD and comment where I have something to contribute—I didn't see Schumin's note until after I commented here. But informing people who have spoken up in a debate that it's continuing in another forum could be seen as a courtesy instead of a conspiracy. (b) Wikipedians have a right to comment, even if they have some involvement in the issue being discussed. Please note that the alleged meatpuppets actually made arguments and didn't just do the usual newbie "Dont Delete our Board you fuckers!" kind of nonsense we often see on AfD. (c) The Mirsky nom is a separate issue, but "kids these days" sounds funny rather than snide to me. Maybe you have to be old to get it. (d) Most importantly, if you read the page JerseyDevil so triumphantly adduces, instead of just his cherrypicked examples, in my opinion you'll see Spinn working fairly respectfully within the Wikipedia process to get his page reinstated. To hold up that page as some kind of evidence of bad faith is just not appropriate. rodii 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I had no idea that Schumin has attempted to 'recruit' me. Frankly, this is argumentum ad hominem, and shouldn't influence one's vote. There's a difficult problem here; Wikipedia would want to avoid having a bunch of fanboys jumping on the bandwagon and defending the honor of some po-dunk nothing web site that some idiot posted, but doesn't really belong on the Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would think that the Wikipedia would want to know about an influential web site from the early days, and would want people who are informed about that site (who, most likely, would be that site's fans) to provide credible information about it. This is why I urgently ask the voters to consider the merits of the page based on the page's merits, and not the merits of the people voting for it. Otherwise, you risk turning the Wikipedia into something less than useful. -- TreyVanRiper 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn website, if the writer keeps on recreating, protect it. --Terence Ong 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinnwebe was extremely well known in the web community for its particular handling of Dysfunctional Family Circus. It found itself targetted by Bill Keane (of Family Circus fame) for a lawsuit on the issue, which Spinn avoided by having a discussion with Mr. Keane, and eventually taking down the Dysfunctional Family Circus itself. As commented elsewhere, if you want to delete this page, you may as well delete a lot of other pages regarding other notable web sites that have come and gone. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey, TreyVanRiper (the user who left the unsigned 'keep' vote).....why is it you just created your user page yesterday? [4]? P.S I am aware your contributions go back to mid January 2006. Also rodii, I haven't accused you of anything. I have accused the relatively new posters who came out united to vote in the speedy deletion page.--Jersey Devil 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Cry of frustration. Let's look at the "relatively new posters" on that Speedy Deletion page and the dates of their first edits:
Keep votes
Spinn: 19 Jul 2005
TreyVanRiper: 13 Jan 2006
notmydesk: 30 Aug 2005, but that's it until the recent kerfuffle
SchuminWeb: 7 Apr 2005
JohnRussell: 22 Sep 2005
K-Man: only edit
DenisMoskowitz: 3 May 2004
Zompist: 8 Aug 2005
rodii: 25 Dec 2004
Delete or recuse votes
Elkman: 25 Jul 2005
JerseyDevil: 6 May 2005
So it looks to me as if only K-Man, TreyVanRiper and arguably notmydesk really fall into the category Jersey Devil is talking about. But more important, most of those people are actually making arguments about encyclopedicity, whereas you are only talking about meatpuppets and process. A number of your points from the original AfD have been refuted (Spinn being the original author, the author being a "redlink", etc.) and arguments supporting notability have been advanced, and all we keep hearing from you is accusations of bad faith. WTF does it matter when someone created their user page?
I don't really care about this deletion that much--I said above I'd be happy with a merge or even a delete without prejudice. I just think we should get away from the OMG MEATPUPPETS stuff. rodii 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies.. I thought I had left the note signed. I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. This is also why I hadn't created a user page originally: I neither knew how, nor thought myself important enough to rate one. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment.
  • You voted delete on the original article on the basis I wrote it, yet I did not.
  • You're suggesting Zompist should be looked at suspiciously because he wrote his own article, yet he did not.
  • Multiple articles in independent reputable sources make it notable. If you have a band that's a one-hit wonder, do you make an entry for the song, or for the band?
  • A conversation among friends does not indicate a conspiracy against you. Nyder's comment on my forum is immaterial (she hasn't even been involved in any of this on Wikipedia to my knowledge).
  • I edited Mirsky's entry in Sept 2005 so it was on my watchlist; seeing your name come up on my watchlist in another article is also not proof of a conspiracy against you.
  • You are taking all of this too personally. I feel anything I say is going to be viewed through a lens of suspicion, not because it's my site, but because you think I'm orchestrating something. If my friends make valid points, why do their opinions become less worthy because they're my friends? --Spinn 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete or Speedy Delete. Hey, I wrote the original article (actually, expanded it from a stub). It was a decent article on a marginal-but-probably-acceptable web site. I voted to keep it on the original AfD, which was not heavily populated -- 4-1 against, IIRC, including the nominator. I think its too bad it was deleted. BUT. It was deleted properly in-process, and I think we need to respect that. Whether AfD might need reform (e.g., at least n total responses are required, where n=8 or whatever) is an interesting question but not germane to to this case. We need to stand by the principle of stare decicis or we'll never get anything done. In fact, per the nominator, I don't think this should even be here. It is NOT acceptable for Wikipedia to be bullied into revoking a properly placed speedy by out-of-process deletion of properly formed and placed speedy tags, period. The only correct recourse is deletion review (although technically that is only for correction of out-of-process deletions, and this deletion was done properly). I call on the closing admin to take note of my comments and my standing as author of the original article. Herostratus 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (N.B. and FWIW, the original article was not written by anyone associated with the site, it was written by me solely on my own initiative, and I have no formal association and with the site and know no one who does, although I used to post on the forums in years past.) Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below. Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It's true, I think, that the page was legally deleted. But at least one or two of the delete votes were ill-informed, and some folks knowlegeable about the subject had no idea that there was a vote for its deletion until sometime after the vote had finished. Suppose, for example, that a group of people on Wikipedia decided to choose some obscure topic (e.g. Fugue, the musical form), set up a vote for its deletion, and cause the page to get removed. Because few people knowing anything about Fugues would have noticed, the page would get deleted, perhaps for no good reason. Then, if someone said, "Wait a tic... that isn't right..." and put the page back up, would you still feel that it should remain deleted? - TreyVanRiper 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think anyone's bullying; as I said, I think this (third para) was followed properly for its reinstatement (if not right away, at least in summation). Where is the process for removing speedy delete tags, anyway? I wasn't able to find it. The way I read this, I thought it was done correctly. --Spinn 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am not a meat puppet - please take a look at my contributions if you doubt that. The page was re-created after an AfD but has improved since its recreation to the point that it is now a much better article: see the diff between the recreated article and the current one. The section on media coverage of the DFC controversy clearly fulfills point 1 of WP:WEB. I can understand the desire to punish those who recreate after an AfD, but in this case the system is working - the originally AfD'd page was not a good article, but the current one is and should be kept. (That is also why speedy deletion was not appropriate here - it was not simple recreation but actual article improvement.) DenisMoskowitz 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment man I gotta stop loading this up... I think JD's right that the speedy delete tag was warranted. Your diff is immaterial; he's talking about the difference between when the article was originally deleted and the current version, because someone simply recreated the article with the same content that was deleted. However, after the call for speedy delete, I took the time to read why it was deleted, did some research on standards, and then brought the article into compliance with WP:WEB. This is clear when it's compared to the current answers.com version that JD links. --Spinn 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, first off, this is a recreation of a deleted page, albeit with some additional content. secondly, it fails WP:WEB because I don't accept the argument that Dysfunctional Family Circus confers notability back on SpinnWebe. DFC is notable and has it's own article but in all the referenced material about DFC linked in the SpinnWebe article, SpinnWebe is never mentioned, or just linked to the DFC section of the site. Show me an article in a widely read publication that is primarily about SpinnWebe and I'll recondsider, but based on all evidence provided, SpinnWebe is worthy of a mention in the Dysfunctional Family Circus article and that is about it.--Isotope23 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Added a link to an old Internet Underground article. There's a mention in an old issue of The New Yorker, but that's not online; I have a copy at home somewhere, but obviously I couldn't scan it and put it on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. I'll look for it anyway, though, if it'd satisfy your curiosity. --Spinn 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
See The New Yorker story referenced above, which is an article about SpinnWebe, not the DFC.Zompist 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Give me some time to verify. I don't read the New Yorker so it's not like I have back issues lying around, but if indeed there is a full page article on SpinnWebe itself in a back issue that is worthy of consideration.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Internet Underground was a print magazine published by Ziff-Davis from 1995 to 1997. Doesn't this already address your concern? --Spinn 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment No, per WP:WEB criteria 1, I would consider this to be a trivial mention (about one subsection of the website: the Nipple Server). I also need to see mulitiple source mentions per criteria 1 (or 1 feature length article in a well known publication would satisfy me as well, even though I don't think this is explicitly stated in the criteria). I need to see the New Yorker article. I'll try to get out to the Library by my house in the next day or so... should have it on file there.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I think you're using too broad a definition of "trivial coverage". WP:WEB appears to mean that as: a press release printed in a newspaper is trivial, a magazine printing a list of sites that start with S is trivial. The article is materially about the site, whether it's a section of it or not. I can demonstrate an article on the SpinnWebe Nipple Server in reference X, an article on the SpinnWebe DFC in reference Y. Non-trivial mentions in reputable print publications. Done.

--Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion you are taking too liberal a reading of "trivial coverage". I consider paragraph blurbs, even if materially about a subject, to be trivial. WP:WEB is a guideline, so it is going to be open to interpretation. Disagreements about guideline interpretations aside though, I think this is largely a moot point since by my count this is currently destined for a No Consensus (default keep).--Isotope23 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not a meatpuppet, just a loyal fan to a site that should be recognized across the internet. Now that I have seen the true side of you guys running Wikipedia, I don't think your site even deserves to carry a stub about the genuinely historic Spinnwebe.com. Seeing that you guys seem to already have your minds' set on this issue, stubbornly I might add, let me just set the record straight: you're not "Keepers Of The Knowledge" or anything important, you elitist a**holes. You're a backwoods free encyclopedia that will never amount to anything worth remembering in ten years. If you can't follow your own rules, go to hell. --K-Man Time and Date irrelevant.
  • LOL, why don't you tell us what you really think K-Man.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to comment on this by both sides of the dispute as the admin who closed the original AfD debate. All I will tell you folks is:
Amen to that. I think my statement "there's nothing untoward going on here" could've been summarized to Assume good faith if I'd known the term. The very statement that started this AfD assumed bad faith. --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking. For instance, http://www.avrillavigne.com had a traffic ranking of 1,261,091 as of January 27, 2006[5], but nobody would question Avril Lavigne easily warrants an article, and its reasonable to assume the site is visited by more people than indicated by Alexa."[[5]] SpinnWebe does not have to have a low Alexia number to be in wikipedia. Plus that is the current Alexa number, not ones over the past 10 years! This is like checking how many play MUDS[[6]] now and removeing the article because of low interest. (ie it is historical)JohnRussell 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (since I'm not arguing deletion based on traffic rankings etc); your argument is apples and oranges. Avril Lavigne warrents an article regardless of Alexa rankings (et al) because she is notable independant of her website (and would be considered under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. An article on www.avrillavigne.com would probably not survive an AfD though (it would be deleted most likely and content merged to Avril Lavigne. If SpinnWebe were an entity outside of a website, you could apply criteria to that entity that were completely independent of web rankings and other criteria that are traditionally applied to websites. Your point about applying current Alexa rankings in the context of a discussion about the historical value of a site has some validity though, but in that case I would recommend better demonstrating the historical context and value of SpinnWebe in the article.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons exhaustively stated by several above. The site is a notable part of 'net history and shouldn't be judged by alexa rankings or yahoo hits. Current popularity levels are not relevant.--Notmydesk 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of procedural concerns, the article itself clearly qualifies under WP:WEB for the New Yorker and Internet Underground write-ups alone. --Lore Sjoberg 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologize if I did violate the "don't be a dick" policy, in particular to Spinn (though in all fairness, others going around make 'snide' comments to me clearly violate 'don't be a dick' and I don't think I was to out of line considering the sheer numbers of users from the site who came to recreated the article and halt the deletion process). However, the fact is that the speedy was improperly removed and the page that was deleted was identical to this one. I'll just wait to see what the outcome of this is. P.S This is the longest afd page I've ever seen.--Jersey Devil 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why do you keep saying the current page is identical to the one that was removed, when it is quite easy to demonstrate this is false using the answers.com link you provided? --Spinn 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I just mean the one that was c&ped, before you made the new changes. The references make the article look better, the Wired article mentions you and the site but solely in the context of the DFC. It seems that the only notablity that the website really has is regarding the DFC, so why not just merge this article with the DFC article? Or just make Spinnwebe redirect to the DFC page as it already has a lot of info about Spinnwebe's relationship with it. Also, it would help the argument to have a link to the New Yorker piece (though, I understand that since it was created so long ago it would be difficult to find). Simply stating that it was cited in the New Yorker doesn't help because we can not verify it.--Jersey Devil 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment "the one...before you made the new changes." Then you are arguing a previous version should be deleted, not the current one. Even if I find my old copy of this magazine, I am at a loss how I can present it to you, since scanning it and uploading it to Wikipedia would most probably violate copyright. I (and others) tell you it is there, and if you assume bad faith, then yes, you can't accept it as a reference. Even if I scanned it and mailed it to you personally to satisfy your doubt, then the reference would still hold the same weight for another editor two years from now. I am not sure, then, how any printed, offline material can be taken as a reference. --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The New Yorker is readily available on a complete DVD set; I have it, and checked the issue in question. It's a short article; but 1. it's the New Yorker, man; how much coverage has Wikipedia gotten in the New Yorker? 2. it's not like it's one entry in a long list; the magazine at that time singled out one website every two weeks for notice. In effect, it's a judgment that it's one of the two dozen notable websites for that year. Zompist 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think SpinnWebe is notable. On the other hand, the Dysfunctional Family Circus article itself completely addresses the importance of the site. Let me come up with an analogy to demonstrate:
Suppose "Weird Al" Yankovic, known worldwide for his numerous song parodies, had instead made exactly one high-profile parody song in his lifetime. Would he get a mention in that song's article? Of course. Would he get his own article? Probably not. Cdcon 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think my previous comment on one-note wonders addresses this. (And the other referenced non-DFC articles make it moot.) --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cdcon got it exactly right. As I stated, the Wired article mentions Spinnwebe solely in the context of the DFC. The role of Spinnwebe on DFC is already mentioned in the DFC article. On it's own merits, Spinnwebe alone does not warrant an article. This no longer has anything to do with the process of deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What about the Internet Underground citation? That mentions spinnwebe and the Nipple Server, not the DFC. And the New Yorker article -- though it hasn't yet surfaced here, it has been independently verified and does, in fact, exist -- mentions spinnwebe specifically. Are those just being discounted now?--Notmydesk 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" This seems to me like an editor/admin bias as there is no "organized group" trying to keep it alive, just a lot of people interested in the site and want to see it's article stay because of notability (and giveing good reasons why it should). JohnRussell 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The article Spinnwebe was duly deleted by consensus, therefore the re-creation SpinnWebe should be deleted, and if next month there is a Spinn-webe or a Spinwebe they should be deleted too. --Ruby 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You are again implying bad faith (as if the name change was some sneaky trick to avoid deletion, rather than a correction). Please stop. --Spinn 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Spinn, why don't you just admit you are the Antichrist!? I heard you assassinated Bobby Kennedy! rodii 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endomion, it's good to know that your stated position (that a website with an 11 year history should be deleted as non-notable, regardless of verifiable sources) won't ever be changed by any additional facts, research or other opinions. However, I don't think your position is in harmony with Wikipedia policy or philosophy. KWH 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My reason was non-notability for deleting Spinnwebe and it is for re-creating deleted material in the case of SpinnWebe. --Ruby 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Spinn, how does Scribs, your webcomic warrant an article? It was launched less than a year ago and has nothing to do with DFC.--Jersey Devil 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While I attempt to keep my annoyance in check, tell me why this is germane in any way to the SpinnWebe AfD. --Spinn 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • what the... What does Scribs have to do with anything? I don't see any mention of it here. Is it made of wood? Does it float? Burn him! --innocent bystander
    • Comment Jersey Devil is apparently continuing to confuse this issue with yet more innuendo. Although his inclusion of the link to that page here helped me to find it, so I could vote on it. I have to say, as someone relatively new to all this, I'm finding this particular AfD process anger-evoking, and it will likely influence my condinued participation on Wikipedia. I wish Mr. Devil would focus his efforts on the merits of a page, and less on procedure. This is a fine example of someone who stares at the finger pointing to the moon. -- TreyVanRiper 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I too am finding the continuing innuendo about cabals and conspiracies tiresome, and now going from SpinnWebe to Scribs is looking an awful lot like score-settling. JD, seriously, take a step back, it's only a website. · rodii · 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it does meet WP:WEB, and IMHO, being the home of DFC alone gives it a passing grade. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm dismayed that someone thought this was even close to meeting CSD, too. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The CSD made sense at the time. Long story. If you really care, I could tell you elsewhere. But trust me, you don't really care. --Spinn 22:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, the site was known primarily for the Disfunctional Family Circus, and yes, the DFC is no longer around - however, it has other well-known features, especially the webcomic Scribs. I agree that the Scribs article and the Spinnwebe section of the DFC article should be merged with the main Spinnwebe article.Stev0 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep KWH below gave enough cites, plus the one in New Yorker -- to meet criteria #1. Articles about web sites in the 1990s? History. Anyways, it's not like we're wasting any paper here. Keep. Sholom 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Isotope23. I have (and have read) the New Yorker article in question, via The Complete New Yorker DVD set, and while it does focus on the site as a whole and not just DFC, it is a very short capsule review, and so far as I can tell, the only significant mention of the site in major media that is not about DFC. Let's face it: SpinnWebe was, and is, notable pretty much only for DFC, and DFC has its own, very comprehensive, article. MCB 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - So we have thoroughly established that the only thing that Wikipedia should tell future generations about this site is that it hosted the extremely notable DFC, is that right? Any other detail of its 11 year history must be expunged as pure advertisement, yes? KWH 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This isn't a discussion, it's a circus. I don't see any attempt to build consensus here -- just a lot of back and forth argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links or a place where everyone should get their particular pet project mentioned. That's why I said the original article was "not encyclopedic": it appeared to be just a page to promote Spinnwebe and to ensure that they're represented on Wikipedia. Since this particular tempest in a teapot has been ignited, the current article on Spinnwebe has actually improved somewhat, to a point where it shows some notability. (Not a lot in today's current Web environment, but the DFC flap makes it notable in a historic context.) I'm not entering a keep vote here -- just urging a little bit of sanity. Otherwise, some administrator will just close this AfD with a result of "no consensus." --Elkman 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment umm, SpinnWebe is not really a webcomic, it is a website. JohnRussell 03:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, but the webcomics wikiproject also keeps track of web sites that host webcomics. It's a borderline case, but it's likely Scribs will get merged into this article, which is why I added it to our tracking. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and while I'm here - very strong keep from someone who's not a meatpuppet. DS 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I can't help but notice that the meatpuppets who want this deleted are the same ones who want The Brunching Shuttlecocks article deleted, too. Assuming, of course, they are indeed separate people. Stev0 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Someone mentioned it up above, but if a band has a one hit wonder, do you write an article for the song or the band or both? Personally I don't care that much, but it should be one article and the other should be redirect. Reading through these comments, it seems that DFC is the most and possibly only notable thing about the site. Maybe have a section on the DFC page on other works by the same author? - Hahnchen 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment you mean like these:
  1. Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (1996)
  2. Soft Cell - "Tainted Love" (1982)
  3. Dexys Midnight Runners - "Come On Eileen" (1982)
  4. Right Said Fred - "I'm Too Sexy" (1991)
  5. Toni Basil - "Mickey" (1982)
  6. Baha Men - "Who Let the Dogs Out?" (2000)
  7. Vanilla Ice - "Ice Ice Baby" (1990)
  8. a-ha - "Take On Me" (1985)
  9. Gerardo - "Rico Suave" (1991)
  10. Nena - "99 Luftballons" (1984)

JohnRussell 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete CSD G4, failing that, Delete. You people have logorrhea. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I'll propose this as a possible way forward here:

  1. Everyone calm down :)
  2. We acknowledge that process was, if not outright violated, at least a little bit bent by the recreation of the article
  3. We acknowledge that there is at least an argument to be made for the notability of this site
  4. The article be deleted without prejudice, and that interested parties be allowed to create a spanky new article (or merge the information into the DFS article if they choose)
  5. If the article is recreated, it should be judged on its own merits and not on the history of the current article or the personalities involved

Does that seem feasible? That way the process is respected, but separated from concerns about the encyclopedicity of the information. I realize it's a pain in the ass for those who don't think it should have been nominated in the first place, but it's an attempt to find some common ground. rodii 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would resist this, only because essentially the same information would be added and the same discussion would ensue. What you're essentially saying is that "let's consider if the article should be written better." --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Spinn's concern but I don't think it's reason to resist. Rodii has accurately noticed that the complaint of the deletionists is primarily "abuse of process" (AfD double-jeopardy, Meatpuppets, etc.); very few have made arguments against its notability. This needs a substantially clean slate. I don't usually hang out at AfD but when I saw this article and deletion debate mentioned on some user page it brought me to the realization that Wikipedia fails to impart much of the richness of the early history of the Web, which I think is a form of systemic bias based on the fact that web content is so ephemeral (and possibly the rise of a younger userbase, which is making me feel old). IMHO DFC, 1-900-ZWEBLÖ and IADL were some of the earliest examples of participatory humorous sites in the vein of Fark, SomethingAwful, etc. SpinnWebe is right there in my own memory with Justin Hall's links.net. (And I'm also amazed to find that so little is written in that article on the "founding father of personal blogging".) As such, Spinn - I think if you check your notes and ask some of your oldest fans to reminisce a bit I think we can find some additional facts and citations which can accurately portray the historicity and notability of this site in a new article. KWH 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh. This discussion isn't specifically about whether the article is well-written, but whether it should continue to exist. In my opinion, WP:WEB clearly says yes.
Actually, I take that back. This discussion is specifically about whether there's a Rough consensus to delete, and I think it's clear that there isn't. --Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting case. Several people, from Jimbo on down, have noted at times that AfD has problems, and this case is a good a example. It is, however, understandable. There is a lot of Wikipedia:vanispamcruftisment produced every day, and people are busy. I second the suggestion the simply delete without prejudice and list on deletion review. Yes that's a pain in the butt and seems like beauracratic niggling. But the thing is, precedent. There are lots of entries of the my web site/my 8-person company/my and my buddies garage band/our 6-member games forum/my boyfriend etc. variety deleted every single day. The last thing anyone wants is for anyone to get the idea that they have some basis for recreating these without going thru deletion review because, hey, SpinnWebe. There is a marginal but valid case for taking this to deletion review. In fact, why wait -- why don't you take the original article to deletion review now? Herostratus 14:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Because deletion review is for procedural errors in deletion, and I don't see any. It was originally deleted according to Wikipedia procedure, and again, it was reinstated according to Wikipedia procedure.
I see no risk of creating precedent, either. If My And My Buddies Garage Band was deleted, and then later reinstated with references to its Rolling Stone review, then I see no problem with that. --Spinn 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, affiliated with Zompist.com's bulletin board. Wiwaxia 09:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, see my comments above. Leth
  • Keep. Changing my vote to Keep.
    1. OK OK OK. This was deleted in-process but I think that it would be valid to list on deletion review, on the grounds that none of the delete votes refuted or even made reference to the Keep arguments, and the Delete arguments consisted mainly of "non-notable, delete". Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is supposed to be a discussion, and the Keep side "won" the discussion, therefore a case could be made that the closing admin erred in not relisting or keeping the AfD open. Even if one holds that only the votes made after the Keep side had completed its arguments could be expected to address those arguments, that brings the "vote" down to 3-1 against at best (including the nominator), and it could be argued that that is not a quorum.
    2. If this were to be listed on deletion review, I think the "keep" arguments would win the day, as (IMO) they have done here. So why go through all that -- let's just consider this thread to be a deletion review, and let the closing admin treat it as such.
    3. OK, yes, the article was deleted in-process (marginally), and yes the speedy-delete tags shouldn't have been removed, and yes this discussion should be taking place at deletion review, and yes this would be a bad precedent. But let's not be total process geeks here, the bottom line is that the article was deleted too quickly more-or-less by mistake and should be kept. As to setting precedent, people are not gonna remember this thread a week from now let alone point to it as a precedent. I think that just this once it would make sense to make an exception. (Perhaps as penance for all this spinn could be sentenced to community service writing the article List of people who have swallowed a live squid or whatever...) Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has lots of verification, which makes me wonder why we are even thinking about deleting it. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. My proposal was an attempt to find some kind of middle ground between the deleters and keepers. In the event it seems the keepers have carried the debate, and I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. ·  rodii  ·  02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It has been a week, what is the next action to be taken? JohnRussell 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(add new comments above here)

[edit] Verifiable Citations

The "Nipple Server" sounds like something that should be banned by the Communications Decency Act, but this curious exercise in Web creativity is much weirder than anything our congressbeings could imagine. Every weekday morning, page author Greg Galcik has been aiming a Casio digital camera at his left breast, firing and uploading the image to his site. Viewers are then requested to rate the day's specimen from 0 to 10 on "Color," "Perkiness," "Panache" and the vague category "Overall nipplish quality." (Fortunately -- or unfortunately -- there's nothing that special to see. No wacky piercings or anything.) Galcik explained earlier this year that the site's no big deal to his parents or his wife, as "they know what kind of weirdo I am."
  • A capsule review of Spinn's version of DFC, compiled from some wire service, was published in the following newspapers between September 24 and 27 1999:
    • The Kansas City Star
    • Spokesman-Review, The
    • Star-Ledger, The (Newark, NJ)
    • Telegraph Herald
    • Houston Chronicle
    • Journal Star
    • Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    • Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    • St. Petersburg Times
    • State, The (Columbia, SC)
    • Sun-Sentinel
    • The Cincinnati Post
    • Ventura County Star (CA)
    • Vero Beach Press Journal (FL)
"Family Circus" creator Bil Keane is worried about a less-than- wholesome parody of his kid-friendly comic on the Web. Keane said last week he was mildly amused by the "Dysfunctional Family Circus" when it began five years ago, but then his readers started to complain. The Web site - SpinnWebe, maintained by Greg Galcik - uses Keane's cartoons while allowing site visitors to make up the captions. The results are often sarcastic or dark humor and, predictably, sometimes obscene and pornographic, Keane said. King Features, which syndicates Keane's comic, and Keane's attorney sent Galcik a letter last week threatening legal action unless he removed references to Keane's work.
Another review of Spinn's DFC.
Another review of Spinn's DFC, together with reviews of Dilbert and some other early online comics.
  • "CYBERSCENE - Aaron' comic strip has its own Web site - Comic `Adventures' wow Web-sters", Boston Herald, May 17, 1996.
Another review of Spinn's DFC.

KWH 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(don't comment here, add new comments above the beginning of this subsection.)

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.