Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OUTeverywhere (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. v/r - TP 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OUTeverywhere

edit
AfDs for this article:
OUTeverywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and reads like an advertisement Teppic74 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article mainly consists of unverified POV information. A request went in for this to be fixed in 2007 after the last afd nomination, but nothing has changed. The main problem is notability. This article describes a commercial website, with no valid citations, original research and largely irrelevant information. For example, the only working link to express notability is to a very old BBC article about an entirely different subject (not this website), that makes a passing comment to an unnamed website; the lack of even a name if anything emphasises a lack of notability, rather than proof of it. Were all the unverified, POV and irrelevant information removed from this article, it would essentially be, 'This is a website'. Teppic74 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since raising this, a number of references have been added. However, out of those that work (some are dead links), it still appears incidental or not significant (anonymous blog entries cannot stand as citations). I don't see evidence of 'significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources', so do not see this meeting ORG. Teppic74 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to blogs, when they reproduce material from a third party source they can be quite useful as a means to see the original material and such use falls under the SPS guidance. This page http://www2.disappointment.com/old/blaine/030911.htm reproduces a scan of a letter published in the Metro which otherwise would not be available on-line (it could be quoted as an offline source but would be much harder to verify). The fact that the person writing owns the blog and has written under his real name makes the criticism that this is an "anonymous blog" rather misplaced. By the way, this was one of the dead links mentioned, it did not take much effort to fix it and no links have been added since your nomination that were broken only some pre-existing dead links are still dead. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that you have improved the article's quality by adding some extra links, but these on the whole confirm the notability of David Blaine. The multiple articles on the same topic concern coverage of him, the information regarding this website is incidental. This is exemplified by the BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3139726.stm. I would adjust my original comment to say that essentially this article would read, 'This is a commercial website, and it was mentioned a few times in coverage on a one-off David Blaine stunt'. Teppic74 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia has plenty of valid articles about commercial websites, that's why WP:ORG exists to help provide some consistency. Issues such as improving the prose to read more neutrally are covered by improvement, not deletion. --Fæ (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not suggesting that the article should be deleted because the site is commercial, but because there is no evidence of notability, and the article comprises original research and advertising. Teppic74 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, "no evidence of notability" is rather over-egging your case. The Guardian states "Outeverywhere.com, Britain's largest networking site for the gay community, which has signed up more than 200,000 people," in the 2006 article footnoted which is a sufficient pointer for notability and far better than "no evidence". Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't believe this is reliable; it doesn't give a source for those figures, and they may well have been sourced from the wikipedia article itself (since it previously has quoted similar figures without citation). The 'largest networking site for the gay community' would be expected to at least register on Google Trends (this site does not), and have a high Alexa ranking (it is 485,942). Other gay websites in the UK far exceed these figures: compare fitlads.net (Alexa ranking 77,850, it has enough volume for Google Trends), so any claim of being largest or most popular is clearly untrue. Teppic74 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • In what way are you comparing like with like? The 2006 figure and statement is sourced in a well respected national newspaper with a strong editorial policy. Though I can see recent statistics, I see no way of using Alexa to provide ranking data to examine comparative site traffic in 2006, could you provide a link? Please remember that encyclopaedia articles are for the long term view, not just today's marketing feedback. A website that may no longer exist may have an encyclopaedic entry as it meets the general notability criteria for its historic impact. For example we have articles on GeoCities and Encyclopedia Dramatica for which Alexa would give you disappointing results. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I see that Google Trends goes back as far as 2004, and there is not enough volume in any year for this site to register any data. This would make a suggestion of 200,000 members in 2006 really rather unlikely. The lack of notability means that single Guardian source appears to be the only thing written about the site, so there's nothing to compare, and may never be. Isn't this part of the reason why one single source is not suitable for notability requirements? Teppic74 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't !vote in your own nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the GNG and ORG. The issues raised in the nomination are matters of improvement rather than deletion. Fæ (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
  • While edits to the article are welcome, so far they have not been at all balanced. For example, the only original research content to be removed is that which is unfavourable in its description of the website. Dead links repaired include information not verifiable on the Internet. It appears these are edits with a very close association with the site, and I think a more balanced approach in editing the article is required, if notability and appropriateness is to be viewed fairly. Teppic74 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, particularly as the "Criticisms" section I removed was particularly non-neutral and had been already marked as unsourced for four years. But this is a matter of improvement that can be usefully discussed on the talk page rather than in the middle of an AfD, particularly now 5 different improvement tags provide an immense and unwelcoming merged header to the article. If you feel I have an association with the site, why not consider using WP:COIN rather than just making vague insinuations? Fæ (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consistency? fitlads has been deleted as not notable but has a lot more traffic and much better known. Why keep one but not the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.186 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea, was there an AfD? I would be interested in reading the opinions. Unfortunately most social website articles of this type are embarrassingly advertorial rather than focussing on social impact or historic impact and tend to set themselves up for deletion for that reason. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (off topic but closing the comment out) Now checked the history, there was no AfD, the Fitlads article was speedy deleted several times in recent years due to being virtually unsourced and making little claim of notability. It would be a good article for a user to draft and improve if there is verifiable social impact in reliable sources (there was a claim of more than 200,000 members in 2009). Fæ (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable, with coverage in Guardian, Timeout and BBC News. "Deletion is not cleanup". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An incidental reference to 'a gay website' in a BBC article about something else counts as notable coverage? As far as I can see the only thing that has any direct relevance to the site is the Guardian link, but how does that alone indicate significant coverage? It looks more like a press release. Teppic74 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article's included reference constitute significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Satisfies WP:GNG. Nominator may wish to read WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion. Your nomination reasoning includes not a single piece of evidence that it's not notable (what's required for the article to be deleted under WP:N) and I don't see the rampant advertising that you do but that's just my opinion. In the future searching for sources would be worthwhile to the project. Additionally, AfD's are not for cleanup. They are to determine if the subject is notable so suggesting that because a change wasn't made after the last failed AfD is directly contrary to goals of an AfD. OlYellerTalktome 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article deals with a commercial website which is of limited interest to a niche group. Similarly niche sites have had their entries removed for not being notable. The 'references' that are used to support notability are passing mentions to the site in the context of other events that are newsworthy in their own right; a fleeting mention does not provide notability. 94.195.193.171 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — 94.195.193.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I think the first point (a niche group) is irrelevant here, but I agree with the second -- the references being used to show notability are not in line with ORG ("Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.") Teppic74 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only "substantial" coverage is Doward in the Guardian. And using the word "substantial" is a stretch. The Blaine stuff amounts to trivial mentions. If someone has an independent source with more than 1 or 2 sentneces then bring it. Right now with respect to WP:N this is a fail, big time. – Lionel (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article has changed so much since the nomination, and given the above discussion, I want to clarify my opinion. The reason for the nomination has not changed, the article does not meet WP:ORG or WP:N. The one-sentence mentions in the BBC article, Guardian and Time Out are trivial ("Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."), leaving a short Guardian article (that could constitute a press release) as a single possible notable source written about the site ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"); ("A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."). The references about David Blaine are trivial, and concern press coverage of him, they are not about this site. Since its advertisement creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OUTeverywhere&oldid=38442053) the article has relied almost entirely on unsourced claims (the bulk, including the introduction, is still unsourced), leaving the article largely an unsourced description of a website. Its lack of notability means this is unlikely to change. Teppic74 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OUTeverywhere_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1144129951"