Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 19 June 2006 (→[]: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 per policy and guidelines. Which parts of WP:WEB does it meet? Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (vote transfered to more recent comment) it is referenced in 60+ articles on the Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, supports this and provides a useful complementary service. It also published its own orginal articles and does not only republish Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages." 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)

• Keep Final Thought: I can understand the basis for wanting to delete this article. As has been stated, the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. If they are to fulfill this function then people should be aware of their existance and links should be fostered between the Misplaced Pages and the specialist wikis. BalzacLFS 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, too, but it's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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