Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformation Story Archive

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 keep. - Bobet 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transformation Story Archive

nn, niche, inactive website, probably does not meet WP:WEB, alexa of 222,415 and very spammy article. Google for title phrase gets about 250 unique hits, and most are not about the said site. [1] Giant onehead 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, though the article does need cleanup. The website is of great historical significance within its niche. It's inactive now but when it first went up it was pretty much the only place to go to for transformation fiction on the Internet and it became a center of activity for the fandom. Looking over WP:WEB, it looks like it satisfies the third criterion - the webzine TSAT republishes content from there. (TSAT is independant of TSA, in case anyone asks - the name is a result of how the initialism "TSA" became shorthand for the entire genre). Bryan 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, I just noticed, what's with that Google link? It's got an offset of 250, not a total of 250 unique hits, and as a result it's only showing rather poor hits. Do this search instead: [2] and you'll see lots of references from other sources that are indeed about the site. A lot more than just 250 in total, too. I note from your user page and contributions that you're apparently on a campaign to seek out and delete non-notable stuff, and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that you should at least take more care that you're not misrepresenting your targets in the process. Bryan 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No, I did the google test right, I'm fairly certain. And you don't have to be such a jerk about it, let's hear from some other users about it. The google count is just a small part of why this should be deleted. Giant onehead 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I was trying not to sound jerky despite the annoyance I was feeling, so I apologize if it still came through like that. But I still think the Google link you posted in the AfD summary is misleading; it gives "Results 241 - 246 of about 11,000" whereas the example I posted above gives "Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000". It's not surprising that the 241st-most-relevant hit Google gives is going to be pretty sucky. Anyway, the page has had a total rewrite now and references have been added that even I didn't know about off the top of my head, hopefully that addresses some of the other aspects of WP:WEB. Bryan 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:WEB. No verifiable reliable evidence of "great historical significance" within this niche. Bwithh 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ... although the article's current state certainly doesn't reflect its ability to meet requirements. There are actually connetions to Austrian political drama, besides the niche value. I'll see what I can do; I've been searching for something outside my normal expertise to champion lately. Serpent's Choice 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt that any third-party independent sources can be found for this topic. On the other hand, if Serpent's Choice feels he needs more time to research, I have no objection to keeping with the understanding that it will be renominated if no sources can be found. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Keep, per the argument that non-trivial third-party press coverage is out there somewhere. If that proves chimerical, we can revisit at a later time. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update-- I put in some research time and rebuilt the article from the ground up, doing away with a lot of the advertising-y feel and generally spamminess. I think at this point the article meets the requirements of WP:WEB, although it is admittedly a difficult call. There are without question two confounding factors that make current documentation challenging. First, age is an issue. The TSA was most influential in the 1996-1998 period and has been inactive (although extant) since 2003. And second, the communities represented by the TSA (furry fandom, transgender, and transformation fetish) are poorly represented in print sources now, much less in 1996 or 1997. That the site maintains an Alexa rating of ~220k three years after the last update whatsoever is frankly a strong indication that it was a significant site in its prime. I do recognize, however, that the references are still shaky(eSCENE is itself defunct, but legitimately published in 1995-1997/8, with ISSNs for its annual publication). WP:RS recognizes that popular culture and fiction topics "may not be discussed in the same academic contexts" as other material; ezines and their ilk, especially with years of (web-)publication history are at least a reasonable step above "[p]ersonal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs". I'll see if more is available as time permits. Serpent's Choice 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nice rewrite from User:Serpent's Choice, but in the end this fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 16:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS at this point. Wickethewok 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and WP:V. Is this material interesting enough that our readers should be going back to dig it up? Presumably there are currently-available substitutes for this vein of literature. EdJohnston 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:V/WP:RS restricts use of "bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs" and cautions against self-published sources "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication ... includ[ing] personal websites, and books published by vanity presses". eSCENE had an established (and rotating) editor board. Likewise, both of the ezines referenced herein (Anthro and TSAT) have editorial control; these are not self-published sources, nor do they equate to content like personal websites (e.g. Geocities) or blogs. The FPÖ allegations can also probably be better documented by someone who speaks German (as an internal Austrian political issue ibn 1997-8, English-language coverage is essentially nonexistent). Not all articles can or should have citations from conventional news agencies because not all verifiable encyclopedic content is newsworthy and print-appropriate. What is expected from sourcing for an article of such a nature that is not present here at current? Serpent's Choice 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Ed, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, could you clarify? I'm taking your opinion to be that the subject doesn't warrant an article because the archive is currently defunct and has been superceded by other sources, which I don't think is relevant because the site has historical significance within the genre. Bryan 05:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The connection to Austrian politics makes it noteworthy enough, in my opinion. If it really was the first site within its genre (admittedly a niche genre, but nevertheless), that adds to its significance. Shimeru 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, based on Serpent's Choice et seq.'s version. I note that the site isn't defunct because the creator lost interest, there was a whole big thing. To my mind, that something is the first or oldest X is generally a strong argument in favor of notability. In addition, if the fact of the site was indeed a major element in a political campaign or platform, it probably received more than "passing mention" coverage of the sort mentioned at WP:WEB.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: site has historical significance for development of its genre, and arguably political history significance; it's is much improved after Serpent's Choice's recent edits. --Jim Henry 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me articles on sexual topics, and particularly sexual minorities, are on occasion held to a higher standard here at AfD than articles on less fraught topics.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have attempted to contact the nominator, User:Giant onehead in order to determine if his concerns had been satisfied. However, it appears that he has left the project following a warning over incivility in another AFD. Serpent's Choice 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tough call, but there is a mention in a Salon story, as well as the article being more of a historical piece than one about a current site, so I think WP:WEB isn't quite as appropriate as it could be. Keep due to Serpent Choice's impressive work, and Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:59, 4 October 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.