Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowworld

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowworld

I’m nominating this article for deletion as it is not notable to the casual reader. It almost is written as a promotion of the site, and it has had no real update recently, save for the amount of people coming to the site, and how many moderators are overlooking the site.

We don’t know anything else with the exception that it was briefly in the media; and even that is something that wasn't groundbreaking when it occurred. We don’t know anything about the racial makeup of the site, no other notability than what is given years ago.

Wikipedia shouldn’t be a platform for personal forums to come and promote themselves. I have seen a few get deleted; of course, there are exceptions like “Ain’t it Cool News,” “Joblo.com,” and a host of others that are above the radar. Unfortunately, Yellowworld is not above the radar.

It’s as if I had a forum that was briefly in the city newspaper, and I decided to put it on Wikipedia.--Joel Lindley (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources establish notability per WP:N. I see no reason to ignore our usual standards here. Wily D 13:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:WEB as currently written; almost all "sources" cited in the article are from the site itself, with incidental mentions in ~~two~~ three press articles. Almost no relevant hits on Gnews (careful -- there is a subsidiary of Swiss Post of the same name, which has quite a few hits). RayAYang (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually three of the sources in the article are independent, and the San Francisco Chronicle article is wholly about a campaign started by this site - hardly an "incidental mention". The site is also listed in PC Magazine Best of the Internet [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the count, oops, my bad :) I still think this site falls short on the requirements for notability, though. Even if we disagree about the meaning of the term "incidental" in one particular source, I still think it would be a stretch to say that the site itself is the "subject" of any significant amount of coverage. RayAYang (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The PC Magazine article (or link) gives a passing mention to the site, nothing that sets it apart from other forums on the internet; I don't think that "mention" would have been known if it wasn't posted here. Furthermore, I think it [the Yellowworld.org article] is riding on its campaign (a campaign not known to the casual individual, a campaign that did not generate much coverage). Technically, the site or campaign, wouldn't be known unless some casual individual stumbled on the Wiki article.--Joel Lindley (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that PC Magazine list this as one of the "Best on the Internet" sets it apart from other forums. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree; because no one knew that passing mention existed until it was brought up here.--Joel Lindley (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. What matters is what we know now, not whether we knew it before the AfD started. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problem, allow me to explain.

Let's use an example: Me. I am listed on IMDB (Internet Movie Database). I was in a project that involved some big name people; I was also in a short film that played at a prominent San Francisco Film Festival. So, should I create a page for myself with those reputable sources? (Sources: IMDB itself, links to films I've worked on, etc.). What matters is what you know now, correct? Furthermore, I can use the argument that because I am on IMDB, it sets me apart from the regular individual; I have some notability.--Joel Lindley (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your argument still doesn't make any sense and you clearly misunderstand what the general notability guideline means by "reliable, third-party sources". IMDB and random film websites do not contribute to proving Wikipedia notability. PC Magazine does. Working with "big name people" is not an indicator of notability. Being interviewed by the United States' 12th-largest newspaper about a boycott you're running is. And bringing up new sources in the middle of an AfD discussion and adding to them to the article is a bog-standard practise --- if the sources were known beforehand, no one would be bringing it up in the AfD in the first place. And finally, "no other notability than what is given years ago" --- notability is not temporary. 61.18.170.4 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, first off, you need to calm down. Second, according to your argument, if any random individual, or group is interviewed (by, let's say, a big newspaper) that gives them notability to be included in Wikipedia. And, I disagree with your stance on IMDB. They are well known in(and out) of the film business--even worldwide--as a source many people come to about films and the film business. Now, bringing in sources during the AfD discussion, in this case a passing mention (as it was not even an interview; and even one of the posters here had to dig through the internet to find it) shows that there are some pulling of strings.

Now, another site--[[2]]--was also deleted after having an article on Wikipedia. They were actually listed in the non-fiction book, Asian Mystique by author Sherilyn Prasso for one of her studies. Now, are you saying that if they--the members--were interviewed by San Francisco Chronicle, they would have the notability to be included on Wikipedia? That does not make sense.

Another example: [Kim], an actress who was in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Vol. 2 had her article deleted. Now, given the fact that she has credits on IMDB, and was in a prominent film, and even some additional credits....you would think that she has enough notability to be listed. However, according to your argument, if Miss Kim was interviewed by San Francisco Chronicle, or giving a passing mention in a magazine such as Wired or Entertainment Weekly, she would have enough notability.

Moreover, again, according to your argument, if I was interviewed by New York Times, and given a passing mention in Ebony, Jet, or GQ, I would have enough notability to be included in Wikipedia.--Joel Lindley (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) 61.18.170.166 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, I do believe that multiple examples of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources are precisely what prove notability. WP:N: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive, which means that even a source which is not entirely about the subject of a Wikipedia article counts as "non-trivial coverage", as long as it is more than a passing mention in a laundry list or something similar. This article has that. "Notable to the casual reader" is not a coherent concept on AfD.

Second, your attempts to argue by precedent of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: please give the actual links to the AfD debates in question. Also, keep in mind: Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too".

The deletion outcome in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Kim rested on the fact that all the subject had done was appear briefly in a film, like you, and received no media attention HERSELF (as opposed to the film receiving media attention); this is a bog-standard example of notability not being inherited. And by long consensus around AfD, merely having your name mentioned in IMDb does nothing to prove notability, and only the screenwriting credits are considered reliable, because it is partly user-edited and they don't sufficiently check user submissions for factuality, so IMDb cannot be the basis for writing an article. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources. However, the website we're debating doesn't derive its notability from appearing in a film, so this argument is irrelevant.

I can't find any deletion discussion for a site called ModelMinority.com (see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model), so it's hard to tell whether the arguments in that debate apply to this one as well. Was it discussed on someone's user talk page somewhere?

And one last tip --- you don't need to put double brackets around external links, and you don't need to add a new level of indentation to each new paragraph in a single reply. (In your last reply, you started out with nine colons and ended up with something like thirteen; I took the liberty of fixing these issues). Cheers, 61.18.170.166 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article seem sufficient to satisfy notability, and as for the argument of any notability being years old, Notability on Wikipedia is not temporary. Raven1977 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2008 (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.