Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weffriddles

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 'delete' There's a clear consensus for such closing, the only opposing are the multiple new sock accounts (with Weff related usernames) that keep popping out), the article can't be unprotected without the hordes of sockpuppets editwarring again -- Drini 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weffriddles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the spoilers keep getting added back so might as well delete the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleteweff (talk • contribs)

above user has only 2 edits. -- Drini 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No use in continually trying to fight someone like this. Axe the article and protect and empty page to prevent it from being recreated. -DynSkeet (Talk) 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CSD#A7. No references or citations. --Richmeister_talk 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but feel free to merge with NotPron as well. 20000 members isnt what a normal site can go so keep it!Jason the N 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been indefblocked for editwarring with sockpuppets -- Drini 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you want to post a cheatsheet with answers (as Jason the N did at Template:Weffriddles), get a freewebs page. Fan-1967 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: those are not cheatsheet. its for those people who are stuck to release their pain. and ffs if u want to delete the cheatsheet then do it. but deleting the cheatsheet doesnt have to be deleting the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason the N (talk • contribs)

• Comment: To release their pain? There is a thriving forum to ask for hints. If you can't get through the riddles without cheating, JUST STOP PLAYING THEM. If you want to post spoilers under "freedom of press" or whatever, like they suggested above, get your own web hosting. -DynSkeet (Talk) 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• note: I'm not leaning to any side, but wikipedia is not a webhost, so this must stop, and I'll be blocking at sight further edit warring over this. I?ve blocked all the new sockpuppet accounts -- Drini 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fan-1967. The template just got speedied as well. Dina 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There's a nasty editwar with sockpuppets over this article. People coming here should check the history as well (template:Weffriddless) was got deleted as we don't need a template for a single page. -- Drini 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note A new sock has recreated Template:Weffriddles again. Fan-1967 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt I do NOT agree with the reasons for starting this AFD, however I do think that this pages should be removed for other reasons, Specifically, it failed WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. Wikipedia is NOT here so people can use it to post hints, cheats, or answers about games. Delete the article, and lock to prevent it being re-created. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page was not created with the intent to post hints, cheats, or answers about Weffriddles. It was meant to inform people about Weffriddles, and the socks added the spoilers later. 216.68.126.125 19:52, 18 December 2006 WeffJebster(sorry, first time posting like this on WikiPedia, apologies for 'forging' the signature)216.68.126.125 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was posted by 216.68.126.125, signature was forged. WeffJebster is a nonexistent user. -- Drini 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split it into 2 articles and delete the main one.

• CommentSomething that is a bit enlightening about these unwanted edits is that all the usernames for the sock puppets have Weffriddles-related usernames. This is pretty indicative of a personal attack, no? 216.68.126.125 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brian. The AfD was poorly crafted but there are other reasons to delete this article. JDoorjam Talk 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, disregarding for a moment the somewhat odd reasoning that has led this to AfD, I don't see any indication this website meets the WP:WEB criteria. If someone can show some evidence it does meet the core WP:WEB criteria, I'd be willing to reconsider though.--Isotope23 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it meets notable standard. this website has been visited by Ayumi_Hamasaki. in a show ayumi said it was the most visited site of hers of all time. Wrfour 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, can this be verified? -DynSkeet (Talk) 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ok, let's break down WP:WEB and see if this website and article meet the critria.

From WP:WEB-

Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1)The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

Nothing sourced in the article. Non-Trivial works are like articles which report on only the site. Trivial works are 'in-passing' mentions, or mentions where another website shares the news article or a group of pages share an article.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

Again, nothing cited to prove this is true.

except for the following:

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.

Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

2)The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.

Nothing I can find with a search

3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Obviously this site does not meet this critieria

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

And no, the article does not provide proof of this.

A user above posted "this website has been visited by Ayumi_Hamasaki. in a show ayumi said it was the most visited site of hers of all time." First, what show? When did it air? What channel? Next, even if that was answered, it wouldn't matter. Just because someone famous says they visit the site (in an interview via newspaper, magazine, online, radio, or TV) it doesn't matter. That is an 'in-passing' mention and does not qualify as a valid, Reliable Source. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure a celebrity or two has visited my own website, and even I know that my page is not notable as content for WP. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What a surreal AfD. Anyway, no reliable third-party sources, WP:WEB, you know the drill. Sandstein 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I missed this comment before but "20,000 registered members on the Weffriddles forums" does not mean a thing. I like to use the "World of Warcraft" forums which have over 2 million registered members, and the "Eve:Online" forums which have 200,000 members. Neither have an article because neither pass WP:WEB--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The debate over whether or not this article is notable quite astounding. The article definitely fails WP:WEB and therefore I agree with the AfD. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB- no third party sources to assert notability. Membership alone does not confer notability, neither does popularity with a celebrity or two. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brian et al. Caknuck 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails unwavering requirements of WP:V, which leads to failing WP:WEB as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - fails WP:V, WP:WEB. And, pull the eyes off the sockpupets and show them to be the true socktrolls they truly are. SkierRMH 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As keeping a extra page won't take so much space either. so just pretend it's deleted k? and let's not talk about this and have a coffee k? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del weff (talk • contribs)

the above is the account's ONLY edit -- Drini 05:18, 19 December 2006 (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.