BZPower (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe this deletion was in error; this survived "3" keep votes before this. Also, it qualifies under W:WEB, here are some articles by independent sources of BZP:
Lugnet cool site, April 27, 2003 (LUGNET has an article here)
Maori Cyberterrorism Vs. Lego
In addition, it has 5 million posts and is about 50 members short of 45,000. That is about as many members and about 2.5 million more posts than The Dugout, Veggieboards, and xkcd. I have a sandbox of it here. TN05 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a website with 5 million posts not notable? Is VeggieBoards notable? BS01, Bioniclepedia, Mask of Destiny, LUGNET, they all reference it, not to mention it was linked at Bionicle.com in 2004. TN05 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are useful third party references because they come from the same subject area. This isn't about the others you mention (although if you pushed me, I'd say that xkcd is definitely notable and the other two are marginal). Black Kite 20:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you want then, a link from the Tranformers wikia? Seriously? It never says "anywhere" in the policy 'links must come from outside the subject area'. Also, MoD and B-pedia are not affiliated with BZPower; both are actually 'competitors' of BZPower and it's affiliate, BS01. And 'Scoop' is not a Lego/Bionicle website. TN05 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would need substantial coverage by reliable sources. And no, the Transformers wikia (or any wikia) is not a reliable source. Ideally, we're looking for coverage in things like books, magazines, or newspapers. For example, the article on 4chan admittedly isn't perfect, but it does have over 100 references, including BBC News, Time Magazine, and CNN. If the most notable thing one can say about BZPower is "it was linked at Bionicle.com in 2004", well, I just don't think it will ever be notable enough for an article. You can wish and hope all you like, but some things just aren't going to happen, ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot see why coming from the same subject area makes a reference unusable. That's where references would be expected to come from. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, DGG. A fansite being linked to from another fansite (which likely both share many of the same members) is not a reliable source, as you know perfectly well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. It doesn't make a reference unusuable as such, but it needs to be backed up by coverage from the wider world. Black Kite 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If fansite #1 is a reliable source (which I greatly doubt in this case, but I'd be willing to be convinced) then an article on it would count for WP:RS. As DGG says, there is no requirement that things be sourced from outside of their subject area. Most DSP topics, for example, are only referenced within their own topic. Same with baseball players. That said, I'm not seeing that this is a RS... Hobit (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ditto on that, never said it was a RS DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate article if you think it's notable now, because there's nothing barring that. DRV is about whether the closing admin judged consensus correctly, rather than being about the merits of the article itself. The arguments for notability were weak (relying on things like Alexa rankings and forums), while the arguments for deletion depended on such concepts as "it's been around long enough to have sources," which aren't exactly compelling either. I might have closed this as "no consensus," but a delete close was reasonable under the circumstances. It would take less time just to start fresh, and from what I'm reading here there may be sufficient sources now.--~TPW 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. There was no consensus; Bonesiii put out just as good an argument as the others who voted delete did. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Although if you just recreate the same article, it will be deleted again per WP:CSD#G4. Black Kite 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. My sandbox is not a copy of the old article, as I never saw it, but I would take time to improve it, adding more citations and stuff. That is the only reason this page was deleted. TN05 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, I was just making it clear that if a recreated article doesn't rectify the issues that saw it originally deleted, then it too is liable to deletion whether via AFD or CSD. Black Kite 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't sufficient sources, or indeed any sources. A fansite linking to a fansite is not a source, and neither is a link from a "Transformers wiki". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clearly show the policy here:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
- Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
- Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
Both my sources meet the policy, as LUGNET and Scoop are independent of BZPower. They are sources. You are ignoring the policy. TN05 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is the sandbox article, it has one single valid source (Scoop) and that's about a DDOS attack from eight years ago (and actually, it's really about the response to that DDOS attack which was against another website). It certainly doesn't show multiple non-trivial independent works. Black Kite 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a work in progress; I will have more links soon. This is not the AfD, this about whether the decision made was in error, which it was. TN05 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the version that was deleted at that AfD had no independent sources whatsoever, just links to other forums and blogs, I fail to see how that decision could possibly have been in error. Black Kite 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those forums and blogs affiliated with BZPower? Nope, so your point fails. You are disregarding policy, and stating it to be what it is not. TN05 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you actually need to read the policy (WP:V) yourself. It doesn't matter whether they're affiliated or not - blogs and forums are not reliable independent sources. The policy quite clearly states that (WP:SPS). Thus the original AfD decision was completely correct. If you can recreate the article in a manner that solves these problems, then that's fine, but there's no doubt that a DRV will not achieve that. Black Kite 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...For the reason of vanity press. Also, the link to Lugnet is not on their forum; it is an award given out by them. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- It is not purely for the reason of vanity press. Please just read the policy. "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 media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable". The only exception to this is certain circumstances where blogs are written by professional writers under the control of major media groups. Unless the subject can be shown to have independent multiple non-trivial coverage outside this area, it fails WP:V, as this article did. The LUGNET link is also user-generated content - it is reviews sent in by members of the site. Black Kite 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|