Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shizz (second nomination)

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 09:41Z

[edit] The Shizz

The Shizz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

nn forum, deals with nn bands, fails WP:WEB, spammy, last afd was bombarded by forum members, rendering a no consensus. Alexa is a pitiful 5,340,834 Booshakla 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. About a routine non-notable pop music promotion website. Anthony Appleyard 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlinked, according to Google; unloved, by Alexa; non-notable, per WP:WEB. Great that Arizona indie music fans have a gathering place to discuss the Minibosses, but not, as it stands, encylopedic. Robertissimo 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable per WP:WEB and per Robertissimo's comments Jayden54 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. nn Internet forum. --- RockMFR 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Passes WP:WEB: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The references are included on the page. I honestly don't see what the problem is. Wyatt Riot 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, that part of WP:WEB usually means the the sources are notable and reputable. All I see are two articles to a regional alternative newsletter. That does not meet WP:WEB. Also, in the past afd, the above user claims that he is a regular on this message board, which creates much bias and this argument should be discounted. Booshakla 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere on WP:WEB does it say "This criterion includes published works in all forms, except for regional alternative newsletters". The Phoenix New Times is both reliable and verifiable. The article references those articles. Therefore, the article passes.

I should also mention that notability of bands, spam, and Alexa are not criteria of AfD for WP:WEB. I know that you're trying to clean up Wikipedia, but mentioning them only serves to confuse the issue.

As for my participation in this AfD, you can look at my contributions and see that I am a consistent editor here and have been so long before the original AfD. This article happens to be on my watch list, and I would participate in the AfD for any of those articles. Besides, deletion policy bars no one from the process, and it seems unfair that you want to render my opinion invalid simply because I also happen to post at The Shizz. Wyatt Riot 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, posting on that site creates a pretty strong bias which (as afd procedure goes) will affect how much weight your opinion has when the nomination is closed. And the Phoenix New Times is not a notable source at all, it's just a minor regional publication. WP:WEB says that this site/message board is not notable. And that's just how it goes, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. Booshakla 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that posting on the site might show evidence of WP:COI for the author of the article, but it seems unfair to discount someone's opinion in an AFD because of their connection with the subject. That just seems like an ad hominem attack, rather than actually dealing with the logical content of their arguments. Charlie 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But it does say in afd etiquette: "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." And the above user and showing WP:WEB in an embarrassing level, that's like saying your website got published in a high school newspaper and a zine, and that meets WP:WEB, that isn't true, this page is spammy, has a pitiful alexa rating, and it needs to go. Booshakla 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't disagree. Even if you consider the Phoenix New Times a notable, independent source per WP:WEB, only one of the articles is about The Shizz, the other only mentions it, and then there is not another source. Just wanted to make sure that discussion stayed on topic. Charlie 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article utterly fails WP:WEB WP:V and WP:RS. WP:WEB calls for multiple non-trivial mentions in published works, we get a couple trivial mentions in a non-notable publication.--RWR8189 07:29, 26 December 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.