Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shizz
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 No consensus. - Bobet 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Shizz
Non-notable internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and has an Alexa rank of almost 4,000,000. Recury 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Nuttah68 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I added links to 2 articles about the site in the entry. There's also an article in the October/November 2005 issue of ARTish magazine. Unfortunately, that article isn't online yet, but there's information about it on the ARTish forum [1]. Wyatt Riot 14:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've never believed that Alexa was a notable means of computing a websites popularity or notoriety. This is especially true considering a large portion of the community follows alternative browsing practices, and wouldn't be caught dead with an Alexa toolbar on their system. Such a practice is no different than that used for television monitoring, in which 1% of the poulation is responsible for all of the determined ratings. The entry for theshizz.org does not constitute advertisement, and it is a resource of several historical facts that are not common knowledge. The site has also been subject of several newspaper and media articles in the Arizona area with regards to the excellent work the site does in promoting bands and arranging the stellar Bands on Grand local music festival.--Nitramzero 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC) User's only edit.
- It's not called the Phoenix-area video game music-related Wikipedia. It's just Wikipedia. Why should anyone else care about this website? Calling anything in that article a "historical fact" is pretty damned ballsy considering it has crap in it like "Meatwhistle has rocked the valley for over 10 years. They are extremely entertaining to watch as well as listen to. Plus, cock rings!" and "A forum post originally created as an accidental double post and has grown to a giant miscellaneous thread of epic proportions thanks to the efforts of forum member Spunkman." Oh, WOW! A post that has grown to epic proportions, you say. Those are pretty rare from what I can tell. Do tell us more! This website has no notability to anyone except those involved, so you had better make sure all of the forum members sign up for accounts and vote here as well. Recury 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. It's more than just a Phoenix-area thing. There are users from all over the world. (Hell, I'm from Minnesota.) 2. Obviously, it's important enough that articles have been written about the site, which makes it pass WP:WEB. 3. I do agree that it needs to be edited for POV, but that has no bearing on its notability. 4. Suggesting that forum users will flood this page is out of line until that actually happens. Yes, I post at The Shizz, but you can see that I've been a member of this community for a while now. I honestly have no idea who Nitramzero would be, but at the very least he/she makes good points. Wyatt Riot 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Two other anonymous users complained when I prodded it plus the guy here, so I don't think a few more showing up is out of the question. Congrats on finding all three articles that have been written about the site, sorry if I don't seem all that impressed. It is probably a pretty notable accomplishment for a small site like this one, though. Lets say that all of the site's users are so alternative they would never install an Alexa toolbar, then what accounts for the site only having 17 incoming links to it? Or that the Wikipedia article has exactly 3 internal incoming links? Maybe it's just that no one cares? Recury 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know what the issue is. The Shizz "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and so it is clearly notable per WP:WEB. Whether or not you are impressed with the site has nothing to do with it. I agree that the cites weren't included in an External Links section, but that has been fixed. Wyatt Riot 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- "I agree that the cites weren't included in an External Links section, but that has been fixed." I have no idea what you are referring to there. There are other guidelines and policies that apply besides WP:WEB, like WP:NOT; just because it scrapes by WEB doesn't necessarily mean it is notable enough for an article, which is why I'm guessing people are still voting and saying "non-notable." There isn't just one issue, there are many. Terrible Alexa rank, few incoming links to the site, few incoming links to the article, no demand for an article from other users not affiliated with the site and an amateurish article (which, yes, could be fixed, but probably won't be). Recury 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- We're only responding to the reason that you requested deletion: "Non-notable internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and has an Alexa rank of almost 4,000,000." It passed "any one" of the guidelines in WP:WEB, and hence is notable as far as that is concerned. By the "that has been fixed" comment, I meant that external links were included in the article, just not in the External Links section. That has been fixed, as I said, and I'll be cleaning up much of the non-encyclopedic content in the coming weeks. Assuming, that is, the entry isn't deleted. Wyatt Riot 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- RE:recury: If you would be so kind as to point out why it fails WP:NOT, that'd be nice. Now I know you've (as well as the other people agreeing with the delete) have taken it upon yourselves to patrol the site and make deletions of scrupulous articles, but I would simply appreciate a nice explanation beyond it fails this and that guideline “so tough nuts”. Now you must understand that I don't quite understand how it fails these guidelines, as after reading them myself, I cannot find an applicable case for the matter. Your argument on linking may be slightly more relevant, but I still fail to see how this warrants an entire delete over the many other more trivial and poorly written articles. Stick a "stub" tag, or a "needs a re-write" tag, but I still don't believe it needs to be outright deleted. --Nitramzero 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- "I agree that the cites weren't included in an External Links section, but that has been fixed." I have no idea what you are referring to there. There are other guidelines and policies that apply besides WP:WEB, like WP:NOT; just because it scrapes by WEB doesn't necessarily mean it is notable enough for an article, which is why I'm guessing people are still voting and saying "non-notable." There isn't just one issue, there are many. Terrible Alexa rank, few incoming links to the site, few incoming links to the article, no demand for an article from other users not affiliated with the site and an amateurish article (which, yes, could be fixed, but probably won't be). Recury 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know what the issue is. The Shizz "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and so it is clearly notable per WP:WEB. Whether or not you are impressed with the site has nothing to do with it. I agree that the cites weren't included in an External Links section, but that has been fixed. Wyatt Riot 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Two other anonymous users complained when I prodded it plus the guy here, so I don't think a few more showing up is out of the question. Congrats on finding all three articles that have been written about the site, sorry if I don't seem all that impressed. It is probably a pretty notable accomplishment for a small site like this one, though. Lets say that all of the site's users are so alternative they would never install an Alexa toolbar, then what accounts for the site only having 17 incoming links to it? Or that the Wikipedia article has exactly 3 internal incoming links? Maybe it's just that no one cares? Recury 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. It's more than just a Phoenix-area thing. There are users from all over the world. (Hell, I'm from Minnesota.) 2. Obviously, it's important enough that articles have been written about the site, which makes it pass WP:WEB. 3. I do agree that it needs to be edited for POV, but that has no bearing on its notability. 4. Suggesting that forum users will flood this page is out of line until that actually happens. Yes, I post at The Shizz, but you can see that I've been a member of this community for a while now. I honestly have no idea who Nitramzero would be, but at the very least he/she makes good points. Wyatt Riot 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not called the Phoenix-area video game music-related Wikipedia. It's just Wikipedia. Why should anyone else care about this website? Calling anything in that article a "historical fact" is pretty damned ballsy considering it has crap in it like "Meatwhistle has rocked the valley for over 10 years. They are extremely entertaining to watch as well as listen to. Plus, cock rings!" and "A forum post originally created as an accidental double post and has grown to a giant miscellaneous thread of epic proportions thanks to the efforts of forum member Spunkman." Oh, WOW! A post that has grown to epic proportions, you say. Those are pretty rare from what I can tell. Do tell us more! This website has no notability to anyone except those involved, so you had better make sure all of the forum members sign up for accounts and vote here as well. Recury 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we aren't only responding to the reason I gave in the nom; I'm free to bring up other reasons as the AFD goes on. I never said external links weren't in the article and couldn't care less if they are. WP:N has a good explanation of why I think it fails WP:NOT. There are worse articles, but they aren't up for deletion like this one is (yet), so lets just stick to talking about this one for now. Recury 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- The problem that I see is that we should be responding to the reason you gave in the nom, but we should, for some reason, be required to accept more general proof as the argument goes on. I would just like a simple explanation as to why the article meets a certain criteria of importance for deletion. I do NOT feel that it is necessary to fall back upon a more general article (possibly relating to the possibility for deletion) every time a request of evidence or a 'proof' of lack of said evidence is preformed. The main issue is that a proper case for deletion has never been potentially presented, merely a proposition that feels it can infinitely generally modify itself to suit itself.--Nitramzero 06:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. JChap (Talk) 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is no the Phoenix-area video game music guide. -- GWO
- Keep - Per above. Duh. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Close call, but probably fails on notability. Normally I would say "Doesn't hurt to keep it," but as written the article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:ADS. Needs a lot of clean up to save. --Satori Son 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works indepedent of the site itself Yuckfoo 17:52, 21 July 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.
