Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World (second nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wifey's World

Wifey's World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World but WP:WEB has been refined since then (and the site's Alexa rank has also got worse, now >18k). No evidence is presented of this site being the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the article is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note - I protected the article on this gimped version because there was an edit war going on over the inclusion of personal information. I think this needs an RFC or RFM over that before AFD, as an AFD would be rather unfair to the article in its current state. --Golbez 18:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I concur with Golbez. There are disputes over personal information being included, impacting sourcing. The site has been well known at least since 1998[1][2] and has frequently been a problem precisely because it's well known -- people don't want the proprietors living in their neighborhood.[3][4]. This amounts to a speedy keep, I suppose. Obviously I can't improve the article while it's protected. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Because of some serious privacy and personal safety issues - I do hope the Wikipedia management either permanently deletes the Wifeys World entry or leaves it as it is presently......... VVVZ 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)VVVZ
• Comment The inclusion of their names in The Arizona Republic should remove any concerns Wikipedia has about privacy. How is this different from any other adult performer's real name being disclosed along with their "stage name?" Unprotect the article if the only issue is the use of this performer's name (and Keep). Drew30319 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The publication of someone's name in a newspaper does not mean we always carry it. Perhaps we have more integrity than they. Either way, the article is currently protected as part of an edit war, which makes it an extremely poor candidate for AfD. More to point - the nomination on AfD of protected articles should be extremely frowned upon. It was not semi-protected, it was full-protected, which makes one of the cornerstones of AfD - attempting to improve the article - impossible. --Golbez 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung --Dismas|^(talk) 13:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, lack of claiming notability and references is due to the article being protected in a state lacking a lot of (partly private) information. A more complete version is this: [5]. Something needs to be done, but AfD is not the way to go for this article right now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One article in Wired.com is a start towards notability, but that plus an article in a local paper about them buying a house and the neighbours being annoyed does not equal encyclopedic notability. Edison 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE Sorry folks but like it or not, this is Wikipedia. There are policies in place that can not be ignored just because you like the article or subject. Where are the Multiple, Non-Trivial, Third Party, Independent, Reputable, Reliable, Published Sources? One wired.com article and a local (read, non-national/not widely distributed) newpaper article does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. These are non-negotiable. I want to see 2 or more articles from national newspapers, national TV news stories, or national/international magazines. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Restricting notability to national newspapers seems a bit arbitrary. The Arizona Republic is (according to Wikipedia, at least) the largest newspaper in Arizona, and there are at least six articles about the brouhaha there. According to this (slightly NSFW) there was coverage in Playboy, though I don't think we can grep that. -SpuriousQ 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment So by your own admission there is only one notable source reporting about this. The playboy coverage is skeptical unless cited. One source could have 1000 articles on the subject but WP:V requires multiple sources. I don't beleive the Arizona Republic is notable, regardless of the fact it covers all of Arizona. The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead covers all of north dakota, though the primary distribution is the eastern part of the state, and the north-western part of Minnesota, however it has been said not to be a notable source. I don't see how a state only newspaper is concidered notable. Now the washington post? the New York Times? yeah, those are definately notable. Wired.com is a national/international magazine. The Arizona republic is a state newspaper. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there is any policy that declares state newspapers as a whole non-notable, particularly if it is the largest newspaper in the state and circulated throughout it. I do agree with your other points: I have yet to see any other sources reporting on this and the Playboy claim is currently unverified, but perhaps someone can help out with that. -SpuriousQ 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, additional sources could include:
  • Covered by Martin Sargent in his show Unscrewed. [6]
  • Not a source, but noteworthy: the site is blocked in China: [7] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If this article is considered trivial then this would mean thousands of other articles would have to be done away with. It would be bias to oust this article just because someone does not like it. If this article is deleted then a campaign should be made to remove all articles that real printed encyclopedias would not have. --Margrave1206 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If WP:WEB has been "refined" then there should be either a blanket deletion of all website articles, requiring subsequent resubmission (at least until the next "refinement" occurs to WP:WEB, or some other process needs to be implemented rather than the POV, willy-nilly targeting of one article over another. In any event this article should at least be kept until the dispute described by Golbez is resolved as I agree it is not fair to subject an article to AFD when its content is in flux like this. 23skidoo 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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.