| Revision as of 22:03, 12 May 2007 editHaemo (talk | contribs)17,445 edits comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:09, 12 May 2007 edit undoRetired username (talk | contribs)48,708 edits →[]: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| **It's actually that it doesn't meet ] / ] and no one can argue that it does. In fact the only argument for keeping is that people like the article. --] 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | **It's actually that it doesn't meet ] / ] and no one can argue that it does. In fact the only argument for keeping is that people like the article. --] 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - how about ''this'' rationale for deletion; this article has '''zero''' ] which assert, or support ]. It patently fails the notability guidelines - and the fact that it has been previously kept, and yet ''still'' no sources have been added after months, indicates that it ''cannot'' be adequately sourced. I would seriously like to see some rationale for why this article ''doesn't'' violate notability standards. --] 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - how about ''this'' rationale for deletion; this article has '''zero''' ] which assert, or support ]. It patently fails the notability guidelines - and the fact that it has been previously kept, and yet ''still'' no sources have been added after months, indicates that it ''cannot'' be adequately sourced. I would seriously like to see some rationale for why this article ''doesn't'' violate notability standards. --] 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **It's even odder that two people voting keep in this AFD signed onto your exact argument for deletion an hour earlier in another AFD: ]. Why Misplaced Pages just loves some websites and not others, sources be damned, is quite strange. --] 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:09, 12 May 2007
Wipipedia
Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Extreme BDSM Delete 900 articles in 3 years? Hardly notable. - Francis Tyers · 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no (or whatever the safe word is) delete--Doc 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment What new issue is being raised here that wasn't extensively discussed during the last two rounds: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination) ? -- AnonMoos 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- People ignore the policy when voting. Anyway, this article could be speedy deleted under the no notability claim/spam rule. :-) bogdan 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which policy?--Brownlee 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- People ignore the policy when voting. Anyway, this article could be speedy deleted under the no notability claim/spam rule. :-) bogdan 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I just went to take a look there, that website is doing a lot better than before and there are many informative articles on BDSM. But I'm not sure about whether it's notable or not, so given the benefit of the doubt I !vote weak keep. Wooyi 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- if you include vandalism and reverts of vandalism, yes, there were over 100 edits :-) bogdan 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep per Wooyi. Chris 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Could be kind of notable with the articles there. Corpx 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- But it's not. Prove that it is notable. bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just erring on the side of caution Corpx 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody here brought any real arguments against the non-notability claim. bogdan 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erring on the side of caution here means delete until sources are actually found. Verifiability/reliable sourcing doesn't become optional just because the site is a Wiki, contrary to what many people believe. The closest thing I can find to a source isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Misplaced Pages, since they only say Wipipedia once. --W.marsh 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence is being supplied that has not already been considered and rejected at AfD and DRV.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rejected by you apparently, in the second AFD. I'll start the article on my blog, which has exactly as many reliable sources as Wipipedia. Thanks for the precedent. --W.marsh 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a WP:POINT violation. Plus, I only said I'd give this article the benefit of the doubt, and only !voted weak keep instead of a conventional keep, so no need to be infuriated. Wooyi 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please adjust your sarcasm detector... anyway how much benefit of the doubt does this article get though? It's had years for people to find sources. --W.marsh 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a WP:POINT violation. Plus, I only said I'd give this article the benefit of the doubt, and only !voted weak keep instead of a conventional keep, so no need to be infuriated. Wooyi 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: I think for the third AfD in a year the onus is really on the nominator and supporters to show a clear case for deletion that wasn't raised in the other two, and I haven't see that here. --Myke Cuthbert 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Myke Cuthbert. The only case for deletion seems to be that the nominator doesn't like the article.--Brownlee 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's actually that it doesn't meet WP:WEB / WP:RS and no one can argue that it does. In fact the only argument for keeping is that people like the article. --W.marsh 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - how about this rationale for deletion; this article has zero reliable sources which assert, or support notability. It patently fails the notability guidelines - and the fact that it has been previously kept, and yet still no sources have been added after months, indicates that it cannot be adequately sourced. I would seriously like to see some rationale for why this article doesn't violate notability standards. --Haemo 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's even odder that two people voting keep in this AFD signed onto your exact argument for deletion an hour earlier in another AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marijuana Anonymous. Why Misplaced Pages just loves some websites and not others, sources be damned, is quite strange. --W.marsh 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)