Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xxxchurch 4th 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xxxchurch (4th nomination)

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

Article previously deleted 3 times at AfD (see links from the talk page but Deletion Review (also linked from talk page) decided that they could overturn community consensus based on their own reading of Wikipedia's rules. Nardman1 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the links to the previous Afds are AFD #1, AFD #2, AFD #3, and the deletion review is here. I would argue the site is non-notable: while it has been covered in enough sources to satisfy the requirements of WP:V and perhaps even WP:N, it is only notable because of the unique way it approaches the porn question. It is in no way notable in any other sense, ie there is no real fanbase or people who regularly visit the site. Nardman1 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I note that the specific guidelines on notability of web sites (WP:WEB) do not say anything about fanbase or number of regular visitors. The sources in Xxxchurch do provide "detail on (the) website's achievements, impact or historical significance," which is relevant to the applicable guidelines. As you say, the site is notable, and has received substantial media attention, because of the unique way it approaches the porn question. That is "notable" for Wikipedia's purposes, more than just getting a lot of visitors. PubliusFL 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion Review is subject to the same sort of consensus as AfD - anyone who participated in the initial AfD was welcome to weigh in on the DR as well, so it's not like some outside force sandbagged the community - they are also the community. Plymouths 07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• speedy delete as recreated content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Per nom. ↔NMajdan•talk 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep unless someone comes up with a much better explanation for this nomination. "Having previously been deleted" is NOT a deletion criterion. There are plenty of reliable sources establishing this site's notability. What are we talking about here? Does anyone have an actual reason to delete this article? PubliusFL 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The DRV closed as "relist at editorial discretion." I'm listing it because I want to, in my discretion. I don't like the idea that the community consensus can be labeled as "wrong" at DRV and overturned. Nardman1 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure you can relist at your discretion, but deletion should be based on Wikipedia policy. "I want to" is not a reason to delete an article. Consensus is reconsidered all the time, and it looks like some good points were made at DRV. Which Wikipedia policy does this article violate? PubliusFL 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep There's no reason to delete. It is N, as proven by the national coverage, and now sourced. DGG 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep - it's not a recreation of deleted content if DRV overturns the deletion. There has been plenty of media coverage of this organization - it's obviously notable. When I saw the DRV, I was scratching my head really wondering why there was any question. --BigDT 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep AGAIN - new article is well-sourced. definitely needs work and expansion but that isn't grounds for deletion. also nominator doesn't give any reasons for deletion other than "it was deleted before". Call for deletion should address the actual content of the article as it is now. Previous deletions claimed it was non-notable but that has been disproven by sourcing so the reason for the previous AFDs no longer apply. Plymouths 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article meets requirements for notability, no valid reason for deletion has been given. Improbcat 13:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and salt always deleted and recreated. Article needs salting of all variations. SakotGrimshine 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly, which CSD applies to this article? That goes for anyone who has advocated speedy delete. PubliusFL 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't want to look it up. It's speedy deletion criteria to speedy something that's a recreation of a deleted article. SakotGrimshine 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Not when that recreation was a result of a deletion review. Which this WAS. Plymouths 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well if you are going to recommend something but aren't going to do the research required to ensure you are actually following procedure, allow me to do the research for you. From CSD that PubliusFL posted:

Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This clause does not apply in user space, to content undeleted per undeletion policy, or if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply.

Note please the line This clause does not apply (...) to content undeleted per undeletion policy. Thus speedy deletion doesn't apply as the deletion was overturned. Thus any votes to speedy delete for this reason are invalid. If anyone who has voted for speedy delete has another reason for claiming speedy delete applies please put it forth. Improbcat 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Anti-pornography movement, which has a section on Christian views regarding pornography, though a new article Christianity and pornography might be more appropriate in the long-term since not all views are anti-pornography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:17Z
• Keep notability has been met. Unless someone can demonstrate that there are significantly more notable examples of websites for the Anti-pornography movement (religious specific websites would be better) than this is the most newsworthy of them. John Vandenberg 04:17, 28 February 2007 (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.