User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Harley-Quinn.com Argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The HarleyQuinn.com Argument

The following is a copy&paste of comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-islam.org (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net about why popularity is not the same as notability, and how web directories do not meet Reliable Sources or Verifiability to use with the criteria of Notability (web) as "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" ... I've edited them to change the user names, and to present a single thread rather than just replies and rebutalls from two different AfDs. --72.75.72.174 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See also: Why do articles get deleted?. --72.75.85.159 08:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al-islam.org

Al-islam.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page does not qualify as notable in that there are no independent sources for it. It had a previous AfD nomination over a year ago, which ended in no consensus (here) but the main reason to keep was popularity, which does not qualify under WP:WEB. This is a very similar case to the (currently ongoing) AfD for Rafed.net - a reasonably popular website which lacks any non-trivial independent sources from which to construct an article. User:Able 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, fails WP:WEB: no convincing independant, third-party, non-trivial coverage has been provided for this website. If such coverage can be found, I may reconsider my decision. Google/Yahoo/Alexa PageRanks by themselves are not sufficient, and using this as a measure is a slippery slope that opens the floodgates to masses of other similarly oft-visited but non-notable websites which are listed on those directories. Some valid arguments presented by User:Able. --User:Baker 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide me an example of those articles risking to flood wikipedia, i.e., a popular site that is non-notable? --User:Charlie 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's an example based on Harley Quinn, a comic book character with lots of fan websites, any one of which is a "popular site that is non-notable", i.e., does not satisfy WP:Notability (web):
It is listed in the Top Three on all three of the following web directories in the same category, i.e., "Harley Quinn":
  1. Top → Arts → Comics → Titles → B → Batman → Harley Quinn. Alexa.
  2. Directory → Entertainment → Comics and Animation → Comic Books → Titles → DC → Harley Quinn. Yahoo! Directory.
  3. Arts → Comics → Titles → B → Batman → Harley Quinn. Google Directory.
Or you can pick any of these websites:
All of them are listed in at least two (if not all three) of the above cited directories, and they are all in the Top Five for each directory in which they are listed, with "Gotham Girls" even coming in first on two of them ... that's four examples of websites on the same subject with the same web directory category, which by your logic and arguments are each sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article based solely on their page ranking ... now, do you want me to find any more examples, because this is exactly the kind of "similarly oft-visited but non-notable websites" to which User:Baker alludes ... the argument would be:

Harley Quinn's Heaven satisfies WP:WEB because it is one of the most popular Harley Quinn websites according to the rankings on Alexa, Yahoo! Directory, and Google Directory.

That is the same as the crux of User:Charlie's argument, just substitute "Al-islam.org" and "Shi'a" for "Harley Quinn's Heaven" and "Harley Quinn". --User:Able 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That is hardly a fair comparison. A minor figure is not analogous to a religious denomination; maybe DC Comics would be analogous to Shi'a Islam. Do any of the Harley Quinn sites have a Google page rank of 8? So please give a equivalent comparison; a character top-ten list and a world-religion denomination top-ten list are not comparable. The smaller the subject the fewer sites and the more non-notable the site will be, obviously, hence the injustice in the comparison. --User:Charlie 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I still don't think Google's PageRanks are significant, and they don't speak to the reliability of the page. Aren't there any signifiant publications you can cite that write about this website? --User:David 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The example is a perfectly fair comparison, because it demonstrates:
  1. the notability of the subject of the website (i.e., Harley Quinn) has already been established by the fact of having a Wikipedia article
  2. it is "notable" enough that all three web directories have a category for the same "minor figure"
  3. it is either the highest ranked or is among the top three highest ranked on all three of the most respected web directories
  4. ergo, the criteria of WP:Notability (web) should be ignored because it's "just a guideline".
That is what the author (User:Charlie) has argued, but it does not matter because the policies behind the guidelines cannot be ignored ... I agree with User:Baker and User:David that PageRank does not satisfy WP:Verifiability or WP:Reliable Source for claims of "importance", "popularity", or whatever you want to call it ... it is not a substitute or alternative for meeting WP:Notability criteria ... allowing it for one means allowing it for all, and the relative "importance" of the subject is not a factor. --User:Able 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A nearly identical debate was waged during the AfD for Rafed.net (when the AfD resulted in No consensus, it went to DRV, and now it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination)) ... this shows an appropriate use of Google page ranks as a reliable source for a claim of website popularity, but some editors still argue that page rank by itself should be used as the source of one of the "multiple" 3rd-party references required for notability.

[edit] Rafed.net

Rafed.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Able (talk · contribs) requested I list this at AfD, so I am doing so. I removed the CSD, because the article makes at least one genuine claim of importance. According to Usr:Able, that claim isn't backed up by reliable sources, and I don't endorse or dispute that, but I think AfD is a more appropriate venue to settle this issue. So consider this no "vote", but I'd obviously support deletion if no sources emerge. --User:Xray 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Popularity is not notability. Notability is multiple, non-trivial, independent sources, and for this site we just don't have them. At the moment, the article can't contain anything verifiable except its page ranking at Alexa. Read through WP:N and WP:WEB and find a criterion it meets. --User:Baker 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Alexa's coverage is both independent and non-trivial, right? --User:Charlie 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Independent, yes, but I'd argue it's highly trivial unless Alexa actually wrote a prose article with specific information about this site, not just the rating they provide for millions of sites. That's the whole need for reliable sources ... if there's nothing we can say about the site (beyond it's numbers) that is also backed up by reliable sources, then there's really no article. --User:David 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I argue that this shows a flaw in the WP:WEB, and this should not surprice anybody considering that it is still in a guidline phase and has not been accepted as a policy. The bottom point is that Wikipedia does not cover non-sense, small and trivial issues. We have a consensus here that this site is among the very top of the Shi'a sites regarding popularity. This is enough to establish that this is not a trivial site, no matter how lacking WP:WEB is. --User:Charlie - talk 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Notability guidelines will almost certainly never be made policy as they're so heavily debated. Feel free to argue the case for popular sites with little coverage on Wikipedia:Notability (web) if you think there's a flaw, but at present that's not the consensus decision. The site may not be "trivial" (although I'm not sure what you mean by that), but the independent coverage certainly is - that means a decent article can't be written. I'm afraid the bottom point is that Wikipedia does not cover things that have not already been covered elsewhere, regardless of their popularity. User:Baker 14:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google and Alexa are notable third party refernces. --User:Edward 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
They clearly are not. Google and Alexa cover millions of websites and provide nothing but numbers, no information on what the sites are actually about. Including a website because it's listed on Google is like including an article on me because I filled out the 2000 Census and have an entry in the phone book. --User:Fred 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not true, we are not talking about computer generated google hits that you can manipulate, no mater how much spam you add, you will not be added to the list of most important Shi'a sites, you don't get there through spam. --User:Charlie 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The Google and Alexa citations are only allowed to remain in the article in support of the assertion that the subject website "is one of the most popular Shi'a websites", otherwise they would have been removed per WP:EL, which excludes search engine results pages (see the Talk page), but as citations they are allowed as a (conditionally) reliable source for that assertion only ... and without at least one of those citations, that assertion must be removed as WP:NOR. (Just as the assertion "The site is among several Shi'a sites blocked in Saudi Arabia" will have to be removed unless a replacement can be found for the citation that has evaporated.) Here are Alexa and Google rankings that contradict the claim of "popularity":
  1. Most Popular In Islam. Alexa Internet. Rafed.net comes in last in a list of 10 most popular websites
  2. Google Directory - Society → Religion and Spirituality → Islam. Google Directory. Rafed.net is not in the list of 25 top websites — click "Shi'a" (the URL provided by the article) and it's #9 in the list
That is why the article may assert that the subject website is a "popular Shi'a" rather than "popular Islamic" website ... it's popularity is in a narrowly defined field ... note that neither Alexa or Google have a category of "Sunni" websites, although both have categories of "Sufism" and "Islamic Organizations" (subject website is not listed by either web directory in the latter category, although its parent organization might be), but if any wesites in the Top (pick any number between 1 and 5) of any of these categories have articles in Wikipedia, then they either have some claim of notability other than "popularity" that satisfies WP:WEB, or else they should be AfD'd as well.
In summary, Alexa and Google may be used as citations for assertions of popularity, but popularity is not a factor in considering notability as defined by WP:WEB, which requires that something has been published about them besides the anonymous page rankings made by some web-bot that tabulates hits and links. --Usr:Able 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per User:Baker and my argument presented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-islam.org (second nomination). If there is independant third party coverage from some established source, even if in another language, a good first step would be to provide it in the article. User:David 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)