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.
Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Somewhat sophisticated sockpuppetry is suspected to have occurred in this AFD. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport, but please contact me as some possible sockpuppets here are not listed on that page yet. --W.marsh 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, since a number of edits have been made to the article since the AfD started, the article should be judged in this version: [1]--Taxwoman 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy requirement to judge an article based on an initial revision. 131.181.251.66 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's encouraged to improved articles during debates. If the article has been improved during the debate, then it should be judged by its improved status, and those who judged it by an earlier one may want to check if their concerns have been met. The way it was earlier can of course explain comments that are not now evident. We 're not debating which revision should stand. DGG 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remove silly stuff like "it attracts visitors from around the globe", but I got reverted, because allegedly the article should not be edited when at AfD. Every website attracts visitors from around the globe, so I don't see any point in writing that. bogdan 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that if an article is being AfD'd because it allegedly lacks references, it is utterly unacceptable to delete the references in the article during the AfD process. If anyone looks at the article as it was, he or she can come to a conclusion about the adequacy of the references; if the have been deleted, this is impossible.--Brownlee 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What size does the search engine have to be to fit your concept of a valid reference? How many page results/searches/size of database must it have to be acceptable for you? What is a "random" blog post? Is this the same kind of thing as a random AfD? --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the fact that it's a result in a search engine, not with its size! Being listed in a search engine is not a notable thing in itself. bogdan 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme BDSM Delete 900 articles in 3 years? Hardly notable. - Francis Tyers· 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we judged web sites by size. It seems to be the best site covering the subject matter with the relatively highest standards.DGG 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of journals which cover the topic of fetishism to a much higher standard. We judge websites by the WP:WEB notability criteria, which this site fails. - Francis Tyers· 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about stating some of these journals? Are they really enclopedic? --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles are expected on the limited subject of (according to you) "extreme BDSM"? To come up with 900 on such a topic sounds impressive to me. Is it the "extreme" aspect that you are objecting to; if so why not object to the extreme history or extreme television entertainment within Wikipedia? If it is the BDSM aspect you are objecting to, can you say why it is not acceptable in a specialist encyclopedia but it is acceptable in a general one such as Wikipedia? --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no (or whatever the safe word is) delete--Docg 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which policy?--Brownlee 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anyting in that policy that speaks to spamming, and "notability" is only mentioned in passing. Are you sure you have the right policy? Because this is clearly verifiable: Here it is!. WP:V allows the citation of selfpublished sources about themselves.Grace Note 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me? 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you include vandalism and reverts of vandalism, yes, there were over 100 edits :-) bogdan 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the debate rational. There are far, far more than a dozen edits in most months.--Taxwoman 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Wooyi. Chris 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could be kind of notable with the articles there. Corpx 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not. Prove that it is notable. bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just erring on the side of caution Corpx 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here brought any real arguments against the non-notability claim. bogdan 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [2] isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Wikipedia, since they only say Wipipedia once. --W.marsh 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me? 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neither WP:WEB nor WP:RS are policy and even as guidelines, one of them is in question. I suggest you look at the founding policyofWP:IAR and then accept that people (in two previous AfDs) have decided that Wikipedia is improved by this article. --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how about this rationale for deletion; this article has zeroreliable 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)[reply]
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: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marijuana Anonymous. Why Wikipedia just loves some websites and not others, sources be damned, is quite strange. --W.marsh 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seriously, to wit the arguments have been:
"The previous AfD's kept it" - which, I frankly don't understand, given that no arguments were presented for why it should be kept, given that it fails notability standards. The most numerous argument was some combination of liking it and it's useful.
"The Wiki has many useful articles" - which has no bearing whatsoever, and is a variant of it's useful.
"It could be notable, if it had sources, so I'm erring on the side of caution" - I think after being AfD'd repeatedly, and no sources added, this shows it's unsourcable.
"I disagree that it fails WP:WEB" - but there is no explanation of why the use disagrees.
It's stunning that people are willing to keep an article on such a basis. --Haemo 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep saying that it fails WP:WEB (which is not policy) or has other faults, yet they are unable to prove these assertions at AfD or DRV to the satisfaction of now three different admins. Please either prove these assertions or provide fresh areguments--Brownlee 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB says sources need to exist. If it meets WP:WEB, where are the sources? It's rather odd that the utter lack of sources somehow doesn't show you that this doesn't meet WP:WEB. If it meets WP:WEB people would have no problem linking to sources. --W.marsh 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is not a policy, so whether or not it meets WP:WEB is not a valid argument.--Runcorn 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:NPOV is policy though... and we can't really generate an accurate, neutral article when everything is sourced to the website in question (especially since Wikis are not reliable sources in the first place). Even to ignore a guideline (WP:WEB) there needs to be a very good reason. "We like it" is absolutely not a good reason. The only reason we include this site and not my blog is that random Wikipedians like this site... that's pretty obvious bias. --W.marsh 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - all its sources at the bottom appear to be blogs, wikis, the site itself, and other unreliable sources. It thus fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It needs a major rewrite and sources at best. — Pious7TalkContribs 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is new here? Its notability and WP:WEB and everything else have been thrashed out at enormous length three times already and there was a decision to keep. WP:AGF, why nominate it again in the hope of a different result?--Osidge 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except no one credibly argued it met WP:WEB or notability standards, just that they liked the site, in so many words. The closes were made either by vote counting or apparent bias. Just because we made bad decisions in the past doesn't mean we have to keep making them perpetually... see Gay Nigger Association of America and Jimbo's comment [3]. --W.marsh 15:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So let's get this straight. Three different admins have closed previous discussions; all clearly rejected the WP:WEB and lack of notability standards arguments, not to mention the WP:RS and WP:V ones. So it seems that either they were all biased, or they were all incompetent and could only vote count without weighing the arguments.--Osidge 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did you read Jimbo's comment? There's no serious argument that reliable sources exist here or that this meets WP:WEB. These policies and guidelines weren't rejected so much as they were ignored... no one's arguing this actually does meet WP:WEB or that reliable sources actually do exist. Several admins in this AFD have called strongly for deletion... why is the fact that 3 in the past decided to keep so compelling? --W.marsh 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising as it may seem, not every off-Wiki comment by Jimbo is binding policy or to be taken as universally applicable. Obviously, if he were to comment on this AfD his views would receive due weight.--Runcorn 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's review the history. In the first AfD, it was alleged that the article failed WP:WEB and lacked reliable sources. These arguments were rejected and the AfD was a Keep - not a no consensus, a keep. In the second AfD, precisely the same arguments were made. These arguments were rejected again, and the AfD was a Keep - not a no consensus, a keep. Not willing to accept defeat, the movers went to DRV. Precisely the same arguments were made. These arguments were rejected again. It begins to look as if the claims that the article fails WP:WEB and lacks reliable sources are not universally accepted. In this AfD, precisely the same arguments are being made. They were not valid arguments on the last three occasions; why are they valid now?--Taxwoman 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying this does meet WP:WEB? Where are the sources? No one has argued that it meets WP:WEB, they've just argued that they like the site, more or less. No one ever closed saying "Keep because this meets WP:WEB", they basically said "keep because a bunch of people want to keep". --W.marsh 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to insist that (arguably) not meeting a guideline is a reason for deletion? Where is the policy that refutes WP:IAR and says that an article not meeting a guideline should be deleted? --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above keep arguments and per precedent. As a side note: bad form for the nominator not to disclose the prior AfDs. Some of us remember them, however. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case anyone is wondering, the Deletion review is listed at [[4]] on 28 December, where the administrators argued over whether WP:WEB was followed properly in the 2nd AfD and the conclusion was no consensus to overturn. --Myke Cuthbert 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ILIKEITorWP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, the issue at this AfD is the same as at previous ones-there are simply no reliable secondary sources to support anything in this article. Notability aside, WP:V, a core policy, is pretty clear on that situation-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And we can't keep around articles which inherently violate core policies. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - the same issues are being raised for the fourth time and the concerns over WP:V have been rejected three times before.--Runcorn 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here can reject WP:V. V says we shouldn't have it. So we shouldn't. Consensus couldn't, for example, decide we ought to have a POV article on something. It can't override V any more so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That misses the point. Three times it has been decided that WP:V is not violated; it is not right for a few editors to claim that it is.--Taxwoman 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's been stated that it's not, but the horse only has four legs, regardless of how often people say it has six or fifty. If you'd like to show V is not violated, just provide secondary sources-and I betcha this discussion will never happen again! Otherwise, stating "But it's doesn't violate V! Really!" doesn't change the fact that, if no secondary sources are available, yes it does. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, some people may believe that it fails WP:V. That doesn't mean that it does. There is no requirement to have secondary sources; they are just preferred.--Taxwoman 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just showed above that secondary sources are required... SeraphimbladeTalk to me 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB -- fails our inclusion criteria. Jkelly 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If, after all this time, there are no reliable sources, there probably won't be any. Corvus cornix 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely no reason presented to delete this except to burn for the sake of burning. It's perfectly verifiable: Here it is! How easy was that?! Grace Note 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we could have an article on any of several billion webpages that can be verified to exist... but we're not a directory, we're an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It still fails WP:WEB. From what I remember, it was argued last time around that the content is worth keeping due to being hosted on the "London Fetish Scene" website. That's unpersuasive - if we (still!) don't have any reliable, substantial, independent sources about Wipipedia itself, we simply don't have anything to base an article on. Sandstein 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS:
(Note: correct statement should be "relevant policy and guidelines" unless the other, equally or more relevant policies are also going to be included.) --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
There are currently two "cited" (I use the word loosely) assertions, and five uncited assertions. Attempts to remove the uncited assertions are met with a) refusal to cite, b) restoration of the assertions.
From WP:V, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."
There are currently no reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS, or any sane definition) in the article. See below for more details.
From WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
This is policy. This article does not rely on any third-party published sources with a reputation for accuracy, giving the breakdown, we have: 1) palavrasecoisas.blogspot.com — a blog in Portuguese, 2) surch.co.uk — a search engine, 3 and 4) The "news" section of Poor Mojo — which styles itself as an "online literary journal", but appears to be a self-published website.
There are a further three links in the references section: a) A link to Wikia, b) A link to a blog, c) A link to a site which is "... set up to allow people to post what they find relevant in the news and general interests of people." [5]
From WP:V, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
The article currently contains no reliable third-party sources.
From WP:V, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. "
Of all of the references, this applies to: 1, 2, 3, 4, a, b, c (that's all of them).
From WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable."
From WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
Blogs do not have a reliable publication process. Anyone who doubts this can try signing up for blogger, livejournal or whatever and then posting "Wipipedia is a dreadful site that is run by people who think lions are made out of hats. On it there are people who yell at their wristwatches in the street and those who encourage clouds to attack children". Sites such as CodeWolf do not have a reliable publication process, sure it is possible for the owner to remove the links, but he isn't a specialist in the field of Sexology, he is a software consultant.
From WP:WEB, "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content"
From WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
This is not true.
Blogs are trivial.
News items in news aggregators are trivial.
Search engine results are trivial.
From WP:WEB, "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization."
Not true, it does not pass.
From WP:WEB, "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"
Not true.
It is republished by www.informedconsent.co.uk. It ain't Nature, but this this is kinky sex and this is the main UK BDSM community site. BalzacLFS 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar: 5 results for "Wipipedia", none of which refers to Wipipedia, the first is a mis-citation of Wikipedia, the remaining 4 seem to be mis-hits.
Google Books: 1 result for "Wipipedia" in Kim H. Veltman (2006) Understanding New Media: Augmented Knowledge & Culture (Calgary : University of Calgary Press). Again, this is a mis-citation of Wikipedia.
Delete per Francis' reasoning above. That's a very thorough analysis and it unquestionably in my mind establishes that we should not have this article. It's a tiny wiki that we only seem to have an article on because some of its members are long-time contributors here. Sorry, folks. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe case against the article seems to be that WP:V allegedly requires secondary sources. In favt, WP:V says no such thing. The relevant policy is WP:NOR, which says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Anyone reading the version of the article as it was at the point when the AfD started (as opposed to subsequent edits) an see that that was exactly what was done. All we need to do is to restore that version and the arguments for deletion collapse.--Brownlee 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --W.marsh 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I invite people to exmine the article as it was at the point of AfD, not as subsequently edited and assess the references for themselves.--Brownlee 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (since I set up the Wipi I don't feel I should vote on this) It is not a very good article and has not improved much over time which is a reason to delete it in my opinion. The wipipedia is however mirrored on www.InformedConsent.com which is the UK's largest BDSM website, whether this makes it notable is arguable (and has been argued) and this could be a reason to keep it. The one issue I do have is that most of the people arguing for deletion using the not notable criteria do not seem to have any direct experience of the BDSM lifestyle (please correct me if I am wrong) and seem to be looking for the same standard of notability as they might apply to more serious areas of knowledge. This is kinky sex we are talking about, you are not going to get articles about bondage techniques in Nature or any other serious journal for that matter. Notability is always going to be determined by the community to which it is linked. With this in mind would it be an idea to bring in some of the sysops that look after the main BDSM categories to voice their opinion? BalzacLFS 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong there are articles in serious scientific and academic journals all the time about "kinky sex". For example:
S Bardzell, J Bardzell (2006) "Sex-interface-aesthetics: The docile avatars and embodied pixels of Second Life BDSM". Position paper for the workshop Sexual Interactions.
D Langdridge, T Butt (2004) "A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation of the Construction of Sadomasochistic Identities". Sexualities
A Beckman (2001) "Deconstructing Myths: The Social Construction of “Sadomasochism” Versus “Subjugated Knowledges” of Practicioners of Consensual SM". Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(2) 66-95
Three examples, there are hundreds, nay thousands more. Just do a search. - Francis Tyers· 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that these are articles about topic of human sexuality and how BDSM fits in to it not a practical guide to the subject. BalzacLFS 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sex-interface-aesthetics..." seems to be about a virtual world; this topic is covered slightly in Wipipedia but it is far from the main subject.
"A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation..." (give me a break!) seems to be a work from a psychology student (I think) and is about sex on the Internet, ignoring objective reality.
"Deconstructing Myths..." is, as stated, from the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, which gives some idea where this is coming from.
NONE of these directly address the topic, NONE of them are written by people who even pretend to be practioners, NONE of them are encyclopedic, NONE of them directly address either BDSM nor fetish, NONE are "more notable" than Wipipedia. Sir, you are scratching the bottom parts of the barrel to support an unsupportable argument. --Interesdom 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are on the subject of kinky sex, which is what was claimed, "This is kinky sex we are talking about, you are not going to get articles about bondage techniques in Nature or any other serious journal for that matter.". These are serious academic journals, and serious articles. Thus proving the statement wrong. Of course I searched for "kinky sex" you could try with BDSM:
D Reynolds (2007) "Disability and BDSM: Bob Flanagan and the case for sexual rights". Sexuality Research and Social Policy
P Kleinplatz, C Moser (2004) "Towards clinical guidelines for working with BDSM clients". Contemporary Sexuality
JK Noyes (1997) The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism
WA Henkin, S Holiday (1997) Consensual Sadomasochism: How to Talk About It and How to Do It Safely
K Kolmes, W Stock, C Moser (2006) "Investigating bias in psychotherapy with BDSM clients.". Journal of Homosexuality
MD Weiss (2006) "Mainstreaming kink: the politics of BDSM representation in US popular media". Journal of Homosexuality
Connolly, Pamela H. (2006) "Psychological Functioning of Bondage/Domination/Sado-Masochism (BDSM) Practitioners". Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality
A Spengler (1977) "Manifest sadomasochism of males: Results of an empirical study". Archives of Sexual Behavior
Like I said there are thousands of journals and academic quality books that focus on this subject. It is not as obscure as you make out. - Francis Tyers· 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware that there are particular admins look over particular groups of articles. Many eds. comment from time to time. I sometimes support such articles, partly because I think that " blogs, wikis, " etc are the reasonable sources for material about topics such as this, where most of the available material is on the web. Obviously it has to be used carefully, but I think one can prove the notability of a site from careful use of such sources, though obviously not everyone agrees. It this case it is clearly N, unless one hides one's head in the sand. It would be a shame if Wikipedia of all places been ossified in its use of resources. This isn't 2001, or even 2004. I agree with the logic about communities.
AFD is not a vote, please explain your reason. WooyiTalk to me? 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see the paragraph just above. I creatively added the !vote at the end. Guess unconventionality does not pay, in posting as in sourcing. (smile) DGG 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I do think it is somewhat notablish. Abeg92contribs 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Earlier on, Brownlee asked to analyze the article "as it was". I think that's a great idea!
In the "notes" section:
1. If the URL contains "blogspot", it does not lead to a reliable source.
2. A search engine result, and a great illustration of the pitfalls of using such sources. This is used to source the claim that the website is "quoted or referenced by other web sites." Being indexed on a search engine is not being "quoted or referenced". Any such inference would be original research.
3, 4 (redundant to each other): Self-published, as evidenced by the "we" pronoun.
So, let's check the "references" section.
5: A Wikia wiki. Wikis are not considered reliable sources (we don't even use our own wiki as a source!)
6: A blog.
7: A web forum. (Yep, it's a forum, hit "register" and you can see the good old PHPBB code.)
So, perhaps someone hid the reliable sources in the external links section?
8: The site itself. Doesn't get more self-published than that!
9: "London Fetish Scene". It runs Wipipedia, so again, self-published.
10: A forum/blog/chat site.
So, let's analyze WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This topic, as shown above, has no reliable, third-party sources. Formation of the pretty obvious conclusion is left to the reader. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was one of the earliest to chime in that the burden of proof might be different on a 3rd AfD than on the first. Since that interpretation has been disputed by some editors with a different point of view than me (probably really nice people with whom I'd enjoy a beer or coffee, but that's beside the current issue), I wanted to bring up something for discussion from Wikipedia:Consensus which I just ran across in another context, but which might be meaningful.
[Consensus can change, but WP does not ignore precedent.] [F]or example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss. An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree.
I think two points are definitely relevant--one is that new information about the article's deleteworthyness (oh what a neologism!) should be weighted more heavily than information which was available in the last two AfDs and DRV. Since I believe the RS, V, and WEB situations have all improved since the last two AfDs, I think that they should not be considered new information. Second that it would have been better to first challenge the previous consensus on the article's talk page before coming here (the "Sourcing" entry on the talk page post-dates this AfD).
I hope I'm not out of line in considering this debate more about the AfD process itself (and how often is considered "continuously nominat[ing] an article to WP:AFD until it reaches [the] preferred outcome") than about the fate of one particular article. Thanks. I welcome further discussion. --Myke Cuthbert 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous two AfDs were closed keep because there were plenty of people who like the site and ignore the rules of wikipedia. Also, the admins who closed the AfDs performed a vote count instead of argument weight. I would like to remind the closing admin of this AfD that Wikipedia is not a democracy and AfD is not a vote. The votes which don't bring any good argument about why the article is verifiable (i.e. whether it has reliable third-party sources) can be simply ignored when deciding the result. bogdan 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion. Certainly nothing in the closing admin's comments for either of the previous AFDs has suggested they were ignoring argument weight in favour of vote count. JulesH 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is republished by www.informedconsent.co.uk. This is the main UK BDSM community site. BalzacLFS 10:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:WEB is not policy, WP:IAR is. This is an article about a specialist encyclopeida. That the encyclopedia is (only) available on the Internet should be no disadvantage to it: were it to be publshed in printed form I am sure it would be bought, quoted, mis-used and argued about by many people, just as many such books covering BDSM or fetish are, just as are specialist encylcopedias. True, it would be nice to quote professional people's objective data on the web site (published in tried and tested media, of course) but let us be realistic about the subject matter and realise that just is not going to happen; it won't happen about the encyclopedia nor about much of the subject matter, some of which is covered in this encylopedia. This does NOT make the topic meaningless, nor useless, nor inaccurate, nor even unverifiable to the greatest extent possible. --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- In three days, no one has yet really answered my question of what issues are being raised this time around which were not already discussed in the last two AFDs. AnonMoos 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's evidence that shows sockpuppetry has almost certainly occurred in all 3 AFDs, especially the 2nd, that shows what's been going on has probably been artificially influenced. Once this is made public there might be yet another AFD, who knows. But those who want "new evidence" will eventually have plenty of it. --W.marsh 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the third criterion of WP:WEB due to being mirrored on informedconsent.co.uk which is (I'm led to believe) the UK's best known site on the topic (it's certainly the top result of a UK-only google search for "BDSM", which must count for something). JulesH 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have an article on Informedconsent.co.uk yet, does it deserve an article itself, in your opinion? WooyiTalk to me? 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does, yes. JulesH 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being mirrored by a non-notable site does not make you notable. :-) bogdan 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Within the UK BDSM community InformedConcent is a notable site. It is used by people interested in BDSM to share information about the lifestyle and practices. Sure there is a lot of trivia in it but that does not make it not notable BalzacLFS 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and still wrong! Having a lot of trivia does not make a site non-notable. IMDB has tons of trivia, but it's notable. On the other hand, failure to be covered by reliable independent sources does make that particular site non-notable. IMDB is covered by quite a bit of third-party material, so it is notable. That's the difference. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the article I just created on informedconsent.co.uk. There are reliable sources covering this site. JulesH 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use the site itself as a reference and the Tanos source looks like a blog (which isn't reliable). — Pious7 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like WP:LOCALFAME to me, to be limited to a specific community in a specific country notability-wise. — Pious7 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading through this and the article only shows the mirroring as any credible claim to notability. Come back when Informedconsent.co.uk merits an article and we can consider whether mirroring connotes any kind of notability or sourcing. --Gwern (contribs) 05:53 16 May2007 (GMT)
Delete — not notable, the tiny amount of neutral and verifiable information that can be collected about it is insufficient for an encyclopedia article, and WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. Wikipedia is not a Web directory, and being uncensored does not obligate us to include every trivial detail of every random kink some handful of people suffer from. ➥the Epopt 11:01, 16 May 2007 (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.
