Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia

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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wipipedia

There is no indication of this website meeting any of the notability criteria of WP:WEB, namely, "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", "has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" or "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". The Google results appear all to come from forums, blogs and the like. Sandstein 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep well written article, fairly notable community, not doing any harm Joeyramoney 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well written article. Wholly non-notable community, not doing any good. -- GWO
  • Delete Fine as an external link in relevant articles or even maybe as a highlighted wikibox link. Not notable enough for its own article. The "not doing any harm" argument is starting to make me want to go out and exercise my Second Amendment right to brandishing automatic weapons Bwithh 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nice anough article but no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 240k, for example, and there is no evidence of external mainstream coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a Wipipedian myself, I can tell you that it is a very good soruce of information to the fetish and BDSM world, with a team of dedicated members. We want to tell people about such things, and it should not be something swept under the carpet. ISD 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant comment - WP:WEB is NOT policy. The opening words on that article are "This page gives some rough guidelines". Articles in Wikipedia do not have to conform to WP:WEB, though I appreciate it is a guideline. Interesdom 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (vote transfered to more recent comment) it is referenced in 60+ articles on the Wikipedia. The LFS site (which is non-commercial) as a whole attracts 25K page views a date with the wipipedia making up 6K of those. Alexa.com is OK for ranking the major sites but not relaible for medium sized sites as it has a limited reach with it’s toolbar so a small change in site visitors can represent a huge change in Alexa rating. Alternate sexuality has a large presence on the Wikipedia, supports this and provides a useful complementary service. It also published its own orginal articles and does not only republish Wikipedia stuff. BalzacLFS 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above votes by ISD and BalzacLFS do not properly address the notability problem we face here. Neither page views (which are also not independently verifiable) nor mentions in / links from Wikipedia confer notability, as per WP:WEB. Only mentions by reliable sources can do this. No such mentions have been cited here or in the article. The originality, nature or quality (or lack thereof) of Wipipedia's content is not relevant to this discussion. Sandstein 22:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a novel argume nt, though - by linkspamming to masses of Wikipedia articles we get inclusion by default. Hopefully our POV warriors will not take this to heart. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair point but the content is mirrored in its entirity by Informed Consent (ranked 14880 by Alexa) and republished as the encyclopervia. while that does not fully comply with the criteria I think it does gives some independent evidence of its notability. BalzacLFS 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. No coverage by reliable sources in the top 50 Google results. (Unless one of the non-English language hits is a reliable source, but to my eye having non-English hits in the top 50 is a sign that there isn't much about it in English.) GRBerry 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB.Golfcam 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have evidence that Wipipedia meets the third criteria, which says that an article is notable if, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The website InformedConsent.co.uk, the largest BDSM in the UK (It is practically the first entry if you type BDSM in google) has a "Encyclopervia" which says that, "The articles are derived from the free-content London Fetish Scene Wipipedia and the Wikipedia." ISD 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (Double vote crossed out, Sandstein 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)) I have swapped stikeouts since more recent keep is supported by relavent information BalzacLFS 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd contest that assertion - there's no real indication that this "Informed Consent" site qualifies as a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster. I understand what is meant by that is more in the way of traditional mainstream media outlets. Sandstein 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Within the BDSM community Informed Consent is a highly regarded and popular website dealing with serious issues about the lifestyle. Also, this is alternative sexuality we are talking about. I would think it highly unlikely that the New York Times would ever run a major feature on bondage safety and then cite the Wipipedia as a source :-) You have to look for notability with the the community who will make use of the the knowledge. BalzacLFS 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You could create the article Informed Consent (website), then - with proof of notability, as required per WP:WEB. As it is, we have only assertions regarding the notability of either site - but what we need are reliable sources. And, no, we do not look for notability in an arbitrarily defined "community" - everything would be notable, then, depending on the definition of the community. We look for encyclopedic knowledge notable to the world at large, as measured by, again, WP:WEB.
Forgive me if I am making an unwarrented assumption but I assume you have very little personal experience of the BDSM lifestyle or its resources. Surely it should be for editors with knowledge in this area to pass judgement on if a site is notable. The fact that Informed Consent is in the top 15,000 sites on the web should at the very least make it a serious canditate. You seem to be rejecting it without giving it a fair consideration. BalzacLFS 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Final Thought: I can understand the basis for wanting to delete this article. As has been stated, the Wikipedia is not a repository for every scrap of informtion however obscure, there needs to be a standard by which articles can be considered of sufficient merit for inclusion. If not then the Wikipedia risks drowning in a sea of trivia. The advantage of specialist Wikis like the Wipipedia is that they provide a repository for articles which, while being relevent to the community to which they apply, would not otherwise be considered notible enough for inclusion in the main Wikipedia. If they are to fulfill this function then people should be aware of their existance and links should be fostered between the Wikipedia and the specialist wikis. BalzacLFS 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, too, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to foster the growth or success of external content providers, regardless of whether or not they are also wikis, and regardless of their content. WP:NOT for advertisement. However, a mention of Wipipedia in an article on specialist wikis might be quite appropriate, and we could even redirect the "Wipipedia" link there. Sandstein 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the key issue is is the wikipedia making a valid contributon to the BDSM store of knowledge. If the wider audience feels that it is then commonsense might suggest that background article about the Wipipedia would be a legitimate entry on the Wikipeda. I think your point about being part of a wider article on specialist wikis is a valid one but would it be as much help to those readers wanting to exploring the BDSM subject matter? I think the rules need to be applied with a degree of flexibility. BalzacLFS 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is not whether Wikipedia is contributing (or ought to contribute) to BDSM knowledge. The issue is only whether Wipipedia is notable per WP:WEB, as attested by reliable sources. BDSM knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter, is not furthered by Wikipedia becoming an accumulation of non-notable trivia. Please understand, we do have to look at it that narrowly - otherwise any random accumulation of bytes is worth keeping as being somehow interesting or useful to someone. We, however, are a general encyclopedia, and no more. Sandstein 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You would not ask a non mathamatician if a mathamatical site was notable, the 'community' of mathamaticians would have to make that call. Within the sphere of BDSM you would be hard pressed to find a more non trivial site than Informed Consent with comparable reach. I accept that it does not have the same gravitas as Nature or the Times, but again this is AltSex we are talking about, if you applied the same rigour to the body of work on the topic as you are applying to this article you would loose 90% of the content and Wikipedia (in my opinion) would be the poorer for it. BalzacLFS 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This argument is eloquent in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Just zis Guy you know? 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ISD and BalzacLFS. Alexa ranks aren't everything. --Brownlee 10:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I started the Wipipedia article. I was going to explain why it should be kept, but BalzacLFS has articulated what I was thinking better than I could have. --WhyBeNormal
  • Keep Wipipedia is very notable in some circles; it would be against the spirit of the notability rules to dismiss it as non-notable.--Taxwoman 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like BDSM! Skinnyweed 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your "Keep" votes are likely to be discounted by the closing administrator if you do not base your reasoning on policy. Liking something or invoking the spirit of some unspecified rule doesn't change that "Wipipedia" is not notable per WP:WEB. Sandstein 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I consider we have made a strong case to say that the Wipipedia is a notable site. BalzacLFS 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The spirit of a rule is as important as its letter; under the spirit of WP:WEB, this article should be kept. Also, it should be kept under WP:IAR because deleting it will not benefit Wikipedia; on the contrary.--Brownlee 10:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:WEB is not a rule, regardless of Sandstein's attempts to put down anyone else's ideas in relation to it. Wipipedia is a notable site in it's sphere and whether it is notable to the general public is not important. The article is not advertising but is informative and fairly unbalanced (if it were not, it should be edited but still kept), discussing an encyclopedia which has several references within Wikipedia (which has original information sourced from it). Interesdom 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not voting either way, but I think we should consider other "specialty wikis" like Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia and ask at what point they became notable to get their own articles. (I don't know, I haven't been involved in WP for ages). Moulder 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I totally agree with Interesdom and others that have made their vote: the WP:WEB clearly states it is only a rough outline, and by no means a set of rules. Jjatria 05:39, 21 June 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.