Comment and question about A7

I have noticed both in AFD and in the course of new page patrolling that there are a lot of NN web forums that do not assert notability or importance. Does this fit CSD A7? I don't see that rationale being used much. It seems like a good one, though, given that they are simply groups that occur online. Db-band gets used a lot since nearly every band in existence thinks that if myspace will let them promote their crappy music wikipedia should too. I hardly ever see db-group though. Is there any way that it could be specified in A7 that this also applies to forums? This is by far the most common NN "group" that is posted. Irongargoyle 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A website is not a group (though a group can have a website). As mentioned in the above section, it is not a CSD criterion either. BigNate37(T) 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

DB-web sounds like a good idea. There are way too many websites that attempt to use Wikipedia for astroturfing. >Radiant< 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much proposing a db-web (although I would definitely support one if proposed), I'm supporting more of an interpretation/clarification of db-group/db-bio to make sure that it includes websites which are for all intents and purposes group/individuals with no assertion of importance or significance (forums, online game guilds, homepages, blogs, etc...) Irongargoyle 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A website is not a group or person. You're proposing a new criterion. Better to phrase it this way. Deco 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. >Radiant< 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as per above. Prod is too ineffective when dealing with this stuff because the spammer/astroturfer can remove it (about 50% get deprodded, only to be deleted unanimously on AFD). Therefore the "article" lasts for at least five days clogging up AFD when it could easily be deleted by a RC/Newpage patroller admin. MER-C 11:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one review shows that a vast majority of prods were deleted uncontroversially, though that may have changed since then, of course. -- nae'blis 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to a db-web as per above. Things like Crash n' Bass! (a webcomic with no claim of any achievements, impact or historical significance) ought to be speediable. -- Dragonfiend 07:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this is a much needed improvement of A7 JoJan 14:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. There's no reason prod can't handle this, and having them at AfD hurts nothing. Considering how controversial A7 is, I see no reason to expand it further at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A7 isn't controversial, it's common practice with a few vocal detractors. >Radiant< 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. It's fairly controversial given its haphazard use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is perhaps controversial because it is used outside of its scope (which is seen as insufficient e.g. by new page patrollers). Kusma (&#35342;&#35542;) 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as I have deleted several websites as "groups" already, codifying this practice seems like a good idea. Kusma (&#35342;&#35542;) 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. You need to actually propose a revision and discuss it, with the reasons why for and against. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time and space. It would also be good to look at the archives—where there has been discussion about this—to see possible variations and reasons. —Centrx&#8594;talk • 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the boldened voting words from people's comments here, but I agree with Centrx that this should be NOT a vote. Discuss, don't polarize. >Radiant< 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for removing the "vote" part of my comment. Kusma (&#35342;&#35542;) 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggested wording, which I believe logically follows from current A7 as well as WP:NOT an internet guide, follows:

Unremarkable web content. An article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or historical significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead.

-- Dragonfiend 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Add a link to Wikipedia:Notability (web), and it is fine. Kusma (&#35342;&#35542;) 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I recommend once more that people read the prior discussions on this very page (particularly #Expanding A7), which links to most of the earlier ones? A7 as originally constituted was ONLY about people, and was later expanded to bands as "groups of people". None of this is to say that an expanded A7 that more accurately/helpfully defines "groups" wouldn't be a good idea, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot. -- nae'blis 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read through that as well as other archived discussions -- are then any portions of those that you think are particularly applicable and worth reiterating? -- Dragonfiend 06:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Dragonfield's wording (with Kusma's link suggestion), which is a natural extension of A7. PROD is starting to get backlogged like AFD was before, and unimportant websites make up pretty significant part of CAT:PROD. Andrew Levine 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this doesn't seem like a terrible idea, I'm forced to oppose it on the general principle that a "claim of notability" is too subjective to evaluate and not necessary for a good article. If I write an article about a 17th century mathematician, noting some of his works and people he worked with, should that be speediable just because I didn't claim he was notable? Alternatively, you might interpret this as an implicit claim of notability, but only if you have sufficient specialised knowledge, which is not appropriate for a speedy deletion criterion. A7 needs to be made more narrow, not more broad. Deco 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your hypothetical example (17th century mathematician with multiple works that have stood the test of history and who worked with other presumably prominent mathematicians) does not seem to meet A7 as that is a pretty clear at least debatable "assert[ion of] the importance or significance of its subject." Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have any non-hypothetical examples? A non-hypothetical example of the type of web content article I am talking about would be the webcomic Crash n' Bass! which makes no claim of any significance -- it just has an author, and some characters, and maybe a plot. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the assertion is not explicit, and if the article is very short, it may require a specialist to establish that the particular evidence offered meets the criteria that you inferred. It's long established that speedy deletion rules should not require extensive research or specialized knowledge to validate applicability. Worse still, some people interpret A7 to mean only a very clear or explicit claim. I'm not claiming Crash n' Bass! should not be speediable, but that the language "claim of notability" is too broad — for websites, groups, or people — and should be expanded with something that excludes articles including "implicit evidence" that requires more thorough validation. Deco 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It does that already. A7 only applies where there is not any reasonable cause to think there is notability. Websites definitely need to be included, especially, as Kusma observed, they're getting deleted already (I've deleted them too). Policy is there to reflect practice, after all... Tyrenius 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to including websites in a suitably repaired version of A7 which explicitly incorporated this "reasonable cause" that you describe, which although a popular interpretation is not clear in the wording of the rule. Deco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it time for a straw poll to determine consensus? Or should I just go ahead and add it to A7? MER-C 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't really like using straw polls for such. Based on the above discussion (which, incidentally, was advertised on the village pump) I'd say most people would agree if it was worded properly. Also, it passes all four criteria at the top of the page. There are concerns that it may be abused - but frankly, on a Wiki, everything can be abused. That simply means we should keep an eye out and deal sternly with the abusers. >Radiant< 10:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be added just yet. Has this change been advertised at the proper outlsets (WP:WEB, the village pump as examples?) Is it a true consensus, or simply of those who patrol this page? If it has been, then I guess I have nothing else to say on the matter, but a rather significant change like this needs a little more, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, I just did state it had been advertised. $.2 >Radiant< 13:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to the current version?

“ Unremarkable web content. An article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or historical significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead. ”

If there aren't any by the weekend, I'll go ahead and add it. MER-C 09:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering; In the same way we have {{db-bio}} (I know its still A7 but 'bio' is skewed towards usage on a nn vanity page) could we somehow rephrase this as to include advertisements for nn websites? My fear is the word unremarkable is a much more subjective term (as notability is already a policy here - remarkability notsomuch) and unremarkable could also be misconstrued by some as to imply an assessment of website's graphical or design quality. Could we just use the term non-notable here too? This is not a suggestion so as to slow the broadening process - so please whether this is thumbed up or booed out continue with weekend implementation Glen 14:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable and "fails to assert notability" are two different things and would make the definition ambigious. Suppose we had an article on a completely unknown band that had a "discography" section. That asserts some sort of notability, but the band is still non-notable. Anyway, the reader can understand what we mean by "unremarkable" when he/she reads the rest of the definition. MER-C 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I still strongly object. I see no pressing need for this whatsoever, and no need to expand A7 with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a look at yesterday's AFDs, as the prod tags for websites that fail to assert notability are often removed. Here are the deletion debates for websites that fail to assert notability.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wedding Network

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Televised Revolution

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HarryPotter-Boards

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoop Scoop

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On The Clock Draft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DCSki

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skatedomination.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad vortex

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk RadioX

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place In Between

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nycgarages.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness-evolution

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wot.wikia.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheene search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.republicanordemocrat.highbb.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetsanta

All these are open and shut deletion cases, with 100% delete opinions from non-SPAs. In some cases, the deletion debate has gone on for TEN DAYS. And on that particular day, these nominations make up 11% of all AFDs. What a waste of time. Thus a speedy deletion criteria for non-notable websites is needed. MER-C 01:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So you handpicked ten. Big deal. That doesn't act as evidence that they should be speedied, and this doesn't demonjstrate a pressing need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been on new pages patrol? MER-C 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Implemented, spammed on WP:AN. MER-C 12:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is disappointing to see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is disappointing to see? You know what, you are disappointing to see. WP is not a junkyard, and we need to do whatever possible to find an easy way to remove the scores of unnotable websites that have entries here. I think this is great and I am quite happy to see a tag and it will save a lot of people's efforts in time in other duties. Good stuff, again. Giant onehead 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3754865&forum_id=2#34375446)

And this is disappointing to see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is disappointing to see? You know what, you are disappointing to see. WP is not a junkyard, and we need to do whatever possible to find an easy way to remove the scores of unnotable websites that have entries here. I think this is great and I am quite happy to see a tag and it will save a lot of people's efforts in time in other duties. Good stuff, again. Giant onehead 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3754865&forum_id=2#40580881)