Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WetLeather

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 delete. The issue boils down to whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on WetLeather. Both of these core content policies depend on the presence of reliable third-party sources, and, although a guideline, notability is meant to be a strong indicator of whether our core policies can be adhered to for a particular subject. The links provided generally fail at least one criterion for counting toward notability: they are either from unreliable sources (personal websites, blogs, or Usenet); or contain only a trivial, one- or two-sentence reference to WetLeather. Given this, I think that it hasn't been demonstrated that an article about WetLeather can conform to Wikipedia's core policies at this time. — TKD::Talk 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WetLeather

WetLeather (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable web/internet content. No secondary reliable sources cited or found in my search. Chunky Rice 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A few references: http://www.motogrrl.com/WetLeather.html http://www.boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=sah&id=30447 http://www.wildriders.org/photos/euro2.html http://www.harley.com/yp/categories/motorcycles/index.html http://www.motorcycle.com/events/beth-dixon-3904.html http://www.fos.ut.ac.ir/links/Wwwyp/trans.htm http://teamoregon.orst.edu/TO_Web/groupsandorgs.html http://www.soundrider.com/archive/tips/motorcycle_camping.htm

Cpaukstis 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The links provided above are marginal at best (some don't even mention the group), although they do establish that it exists. However, they don't even come close to meeting the "significant coverage" part of the WP:NOTE criteria apart from the first (and that looks like a blog in all but name). EyeSereneTALK 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the updated article, which includes those links (all of which mention the name) and several more, including coverage in the book "Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles". Compare and contrast criteria used for inclusion of this small selection of articles from "motorcyclist organizations" category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Street_Motard_Riders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_Law_Defense_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59_Club Cpaukstis 05:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, pointing out that other stuff exists is not considered to be a very strong argument. Each case should be considered against the criteria on its own. Though, if you're asking my opinion, those three articles should also be deleted. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem seems to me to be that the references given are mostly trivial mentions of the group. There is nothing that backs up the content of the article or demonstrates that WetLeather has had "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE. The main source of information seems to be the group's own web site... which brings us on to another matter. Large chunks of text in the article are taken directly from the website, which is a serious copyright violation and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia (in fact, this is a speedy deletion criteria). EyeSereneTALK 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and guidance. I don't propose to argue further about "notability". Others may comment and make a judgment of that issue. However, I must address the remark about "serious copyright violation". This cannot be the case, since I am the author of the text in question, on both WetLeather's website and the Wikipedia article I wrote. While that may call into question the objectivity of the article, it completely settles the question of copyright violation. There is no conflict. Cpaukstis 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to sound strange, but even though you are the author of the website, that does not give Wikipedia the right to use your material... despite it being you who added it. By submitting that material to Wikipedia you are agreeing to release it under the GFDL, which WP cannot do when the material is reproduced from another source that is not under a similar 'free' license (I hope I have explained that properly!). If you wish to allow your work to be reused on Wikipedia, you must release it under the GFDL (or into the Public Domain or something similar). Take a look at the Donating copyrighted materials page for a more in-depth explanation. However, this would perhaps be best solved with a thorough rewrite (you must admit the article tone is not particularly encyclopedic...). You are also correct that there is a conflict of interest issue with you creating the article, but again this is a behavioural guideline, not a deletion issue. EyeSereneTALK 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)



I think you're missing the point. WetLeather is not notable for the web site, thought it is one of the more comprehensive motorcycling sites available, nor even for the mailing list. WetLeather is notable for being a unique virtual community. I have participated in many, but never one like this. Were I back in grad school, I would study why *this* community gells where few others do for any duration. To the casual observer, WetLeather looks like merely another online community, but somehow, perhaps due to the multiple annual events where we all gather together, it has become much more. For example, in my own life, the community of people I have gotten to know through WetLeather is responsible for my job, two of my motorcycles, my last and now my current boyfriend, and more than 90% of my friendships. Your immediate thought may be that this reflects on *me* more than on WetLeather, but I can think of many dozens of people in the community who would make a similar statement. When a member is injured or dies, the rest of us come together to help them, raise funds, and lend moral support. It is, in that manner, much more akin to a church group than a traditional online community.

WetLeather changes lives, whether it is in offering strategic support to a first time Iron-Butt rider on an old Silverwing, coming together to build a first bike --for free-- for a new member, or in the membership reaching out tendrils across the country to help a stranded rider get a broken bike home.

That said, I have mixed feeling about a Wikipedia entry. WetLeather does not appear more widely in part because there is a sense of privacy about the list. A concern that if too many join too quickly, the normal process of socialization that happens will get overwhelmed. For this reason, mentions of WetLeather have been carefully culled from many member's public records. For example, Jack Lewis (www.jaxworx.com) removed explicit mentions of WetLeather from two articles submitted and accepted by Motorcyclist magazine.

Codeamazon 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I can't remember how I discovered WetLeather. I don't care.

WetLeather is only peripherally an internet phenomenon. We are a tight-knit group of commonality, with many spectacularly generous and thoughtful members. We *use* the internet for communication and coordination, toward our purpose of people getting together for fun, food and frivolity.

"Notable" has too mild a definition for how WetLeather affects people: it has changed my life.

Alxndr13 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) --

  • First, while I don't doubt your experiences, these testimonials don't really advance the case for notability at all. Second, whether it's a website/mailing list or an organization, notability is still something that needs to be assessed. Internet specific guidelines are here: WP:WEB, Organization specific guidelines are here: WP:CORP, and the general notability guideline is here: WP:N. If the subject of the article is notable as defined in these guidelines, then we should keep the article. If not, we should delete the article. This is not a comment on the quality of WetLeather or the service/community it provides, but merely the application of Wikipedia's guidelines. -Chunky Rice 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I did read the guidelines and saw this: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It is my opinion that the group that calls itself Wetleather has had a significant impact on the larger motorcycling community, those who are not part of the group itself, as well as on it's many participants. Many many riders (of all ages) have been offered lodging, meals, mechanical support, along with route suggestions, riding tips for new experiences, and so on. These aren't the people who would go out and shout "Let me sing the praises of wetleather!", these are people who are riding cross country for the first time, riding for the first time, moving somewhere new (all across the country, not just the Pacific Northwest), traveling to other countries whether it involves a motorcycle or not. These are the people who go back home and tell their parents, children, coworkers about how they knew someone who knew someone who somehow knew someone clear across their route and gave them all the support they needed while still understanding how to let them have their ride or adventure. Many times I'm not sure that these people ever realize that all of these people that supported them were part of the same group, wetleather. For the group participants, which include an age range from 20's to 70's, there is a much more obvious effect. The wetleather culture takes care of those who need help. There is the passing of the hat when needed for members/past members affected by large scale incidents such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and so on. There is a fund that can be donated to at any time, that is used for many many other needs, both small and large. There are specific funds that are created for specific events, such as scholarship funds for the children of members that have died, regardless of how they died. There are training classes, free and greatly reduced cost riding gear for those that need it, coaching for those that wish it, and more.

Many many many people across America have benefited by the actions of this one group with regard to education, society, and culture; perhaps only this small motorcycling community is aware of it so far.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be an advertisement. Not notable at all. Everything mentioned by the author for reasons why the company is notable, are not in the article. •Malinaccier• T/C 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with User:EyeSerene as to the basis of the nom. The worthiness of its aims and the apparent selflessness of the group notwithstanding, there are no reliable sources save for blogs or passing references back to the group's website. The bar is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject per WP:NOTE. Further, if the comments above are any indication, we have conflict of interest edit too. jddphd (talk · contribs) 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in lacking reliable sources giving significant coverage Corpx 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


--Kegill 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Arguments Against Deletion

The entry has been significantly re-written since the comments above were made on 15 August.


From WP:NOT#IINFO:

Wikipedia articles should ... describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...

Although the Wetleather website itself is not the organziation, it is a visual representation of the community.

Historical signifiance: this is one of the first e-mail mediated motorcycle communities on the Internet, circa 1992. Fifteen years later, the community still exists. This is an extremely RARE occurrance online. Moreover, this is a unique online community because it exists in both virtual and analog spaces. Combined, these two factors describe an organization with historical import in online culture.

There has not been a lot of research on specific online comunities, but Pew (2001] has this to say about them in general, reinforcing the fact that online communities are an important part of culture:

In some ways, online communities have become virtual third places for people because they are different places from home and work.

And a gentle reminder from WP:NOTE (emphasis added)
Notability guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception (with the later meaning throw out the rules).

From Guidelines Specific To Organizations

The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered.

WetLeather is not large in numbers, but as I have argued above, it is notable because both of its longetivity and its unique status as stradling the digital and "real" world. It is also not "local" -- it is international in membership.

The description of secondary works described here is biased towards print sources -- in fact, there is no mention in this section of online references. I think this is an oversight that is larger than this discussion and one that works against the inclusion of a virtual community. It also works against an organization that doesn't toot its own horn.

I understand that y'all don't think pointing out other Wikipedia entries is a valid argument for inclusion -- but I'm going to point to a few and tell you why I've included them, in the spirt of "common sense" and "exception" outlined in the notability guideline:

It seems like a mention in a popular book on motorycling should be equivalent to a local TV show talking about a motorcycle club that has 80-some-odd dogs as members.

This is a historic club because it's been around for more than a century, pretty much since motorcycles were on the road.
WetLeather is a historic organization because it's been around for 15 years, pretty much since the birth of the WWW.
However, the SF Club scope is MUCH smaller than WetLeather, which is international and has more members. Moreover, the SF Club has only one external reference. This suggests the reason for inclusion is stictly historical significance. Why isn't this argument sufficient for WetLeather?

Organization is two years old; material on the page - which is almost a year old - is copied & pasted from organization website. The only external references are local member clubs -- how do they argue that the umbrella organization exists any better than the external links for WetLeather? There is no indepednent "press." (WetLeather has the Idiots Guide to Motorcycling.) Why is this page OK but WetLeather's page is not?


--Kegill 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One more argument against deletion

This WetLeather external source is from the State of Oregon's Motorcycle Safety Training website. This is a government website. How much more legitimate can you get? Note: the "edu" domain is for the training program; the training program is sanctioned by Oregon's DOT.

Unfortunately, Washington doesn't have a similar list, or WetLeather would be on it.

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.