Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club


 * 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   delete. After about three hours of reading sources - and reading the group itself, which I hadn't seen before, I've been trying to work out whether this Facebook group is indeed notable. That there are 30,000 members doesn't confer notability in itself (there are much larger groups), and it's not the first (or only) group which has existed to point out unusual Wikipedia articles. So I turned to the sources themselves: they're interesting, but they're not really convincing as "non-trivial" sources. A fair few of them read as re-prints of press releases, interviews, or advertising for the group, and are written by the group's members. Others are from student newspapers, although the only one that I really found acceptable is from a member of the group - which makes the article a form of self-promotion. The most reliable sources I found - Vice and The Tab are from members of the group too, even though they're not entirely supportive and often criticise the group as being "neofascist" and full of unnecessary trigger warnings (ghosts? birds?). Maybe the group will be notable in future, but at present it seems to be a passing phenomenon without any "significant" or mainstream press coverage. Sorry guys - maybe in a few years time? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool Freaks&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of Notability, Numerous violations of POV Policies, use of Wikipedia as a tool for promotion and organization, inherent Wikipedian bias, COI from editors who have deleted numerous speedy deletion requests before discussion was allowed. . Shibbolethink (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (full disclosure, I have contributed to this article) The article is well cited and asserts the group's notability. It has over 30,000 members, more than many other Internet communities with Wikipedia articles (such as Wikipediocracy), and has been profiled in sources like Vice and The Atlantic. My impression is that Wilson has been asking other users to contribute because they will do so with less COI. The article does not read like an advertisement or promotion. Positive reviews are presented alongside negative ones. The fact that more positive writings exist isn't a skewed point of view on Wikipedia's part. I don't know what "inherent Wikipedia bias" means, but if it means Wikipedians can't write about things related to Wikipedia, there are a lot more pages to delete. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi I dispute that the CFWC has been profiled by The Atlantic, it has been mentioned by Alexis Madrigal in a blog on tinyletter.com which does not qualify as a WP:RS. That AM is perhaps a deputy editor of The Atlantic doesn't change the fact that the CFWC hasn't been mentioned in The Atlantic itself. AadaamS (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentWikipediocracy is a website in which users from outside the environment can browse. While there may only be X amount of members, anyone can access the website. On the other hand, one has to be a member of CFWC to see all the posts in the group-there is no fair way to judge the sizes and impacts of each site. In addition, Wikipediocracy is devoted to discussing Wikipedia and the Wikimedia organization as a whole-a meta commentary. CFWC simply posts and shares Wikipedia articles, in which commentary may or may not take place. --Blueshirt21 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment actually: regarding its visibility, unless you've been blocked from the group, "anyone can see the group, its members and their posts. With its current visibility settings, your Facebook friends' comments in the group can pop up in your newsfeed, not unlike a surprising Wikipedia find." Source: Mic Thus, both members and non-members can browse Wikipediocracy and CFWC equally.--DrWho42 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedian bias is the inherent bias to see this group as notable simply because it is a group of people editing and reading wikipedia. There are no straight-up wikipedia articles about other edit-athons, only those within the category of edit-a-thons. Also, there is a skewing of positive vs negative bias because this article excludes the various other groups that have sprung out of CFWC, simply because of its "fascist" moderation policies. Several of those are mentioned in the references themselves, but are excluded from the main article because it has only been edited by, and for, the article's subject. The members of the group. In addition, Boomur is a prominent member of the group herself, having appeared and volunteered to help keep the article alive in the group's post found here. This user has unfairly deleted Speedy deletion requests, POV tags, and probably will do the same to this AfD request. Simply because this user is a prominent member of the group, and should have a COI tag in the talk page. --Shibbolethink (talk)
 * "Wikipedian bias" from the subject being "a group of people editing and reading wikipedia" is not a valid reason for deleting the article; Wikimania would need deleting also. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already explained what I mean by "Wikipedian bias" elsewhere on this talk page. Wikipedia should not give special credence or notability to Facebook groups simply because they are organized "to share cool and freaky [interesting] wikipedia articles." If a group exists to organize people who read and edit wikipedia, it should be in the sphere of user-pages and where edit-a-thons go, not in a primary article of its own. There exists a subconscious vanity bias in all of us as Wikipedia users to see notability in groups dedicated to wikipedia. Wikimania exists on a whole other level of notability. It's a conference held annually that gathers real people to attend lectures and see exhibits and organize discussion panels. It has so many other aspects that raise it above notability, whereas this page, CFWC, does not. It is only a Facebook group.--Shibbolethink (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Shibbolethink, I think you only get one vote per discussion, which in this case is the statement you made as nominator. Everymorning   talk  23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the references and as far as I know, the only other group that sprung out of CFWC's "fascist moderation policies" that has a reliable third-party source is Cool Nerds Trivia Club based on the Vice article: "Cool Freaks’ Wikipedia Club Is a Shitshow of Esoterica, Political Correctness, and Trigger Warnings".--DrWho42 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding Shibbolethink's comments, I don't see how letting people know that I was helping out with writing the page makes me a "prominent" member of CFWC. I am a member of the group, but I am not a moderator or anything else. Mostly just a reader. I have not "unfairly" removed any tags from the page. There is plenty of discussion on the talk page to prove that CSD and PROD tags were not appropriate. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 23:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There's also Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia, Banned From Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club, and several others. These were mentioned in blog posts published by the same journalist who posted that Vice article. Everymorning, I assumed since the stats page on these votes only counted bolded statements, and didn't include my "Deletion" bolded in its count of "duplicate votes," that I had to also vote in bolded text. Thanks for the update. Also, Boomur, there was NOT enough discussion on the talk page to prove that POV tags were inappropriate, but you deleted those tags.--Shibbolethink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I just noticed that I accidentally deleted the tag when deleting the last CSD. Besides that I don't recall removing any POV tags. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While those groups exist, what source mentions them? Based on a search of the Vice article, they only mention Cool Nerds.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was me who removed the POV tags because, per my note at the talk page, no dispute had actually taken place; someone was just slapping a POV tag on the article for no obvious reason. Sam Walton (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * SamWalton, you're misremembering. I went into the talk page and said "I will create that dispute!" And wrote out a small thesis on why the article has POV problems. Then, when Boomur was removing a CSD tag, she also removed the POV tag. Check the history. --Shibbolethink (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: if we're going to bring up canvassing, the banned member group Banned From Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club mentioned by Shibbolethink posted this: "We got a mention on this chill ass website".--DrWho42 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we really doing this right now? Has it gotten this low? That user is a sock/meat puppet facebook account coming from.....you. (Redacted evidence not viewable). --Shibbolethink (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, the Facebook user in your screenshots is named Mike Kabinsky, not Mike Kaminksy. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it makes me so happy that you've resorted to trolling. If you had kept clicking, you would see that I also included a screenshot of the relationship between one and the other. There's a large collective of very similar users on Facebook that all have variations on the same name and all have profile pictures of tons of people in suits in a specific orientation. (link redacted) Here they are, all together in the probably fake group "Banned from Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club." But you already knew that. --Shibbolethink (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to address this comment in 3 parts: 1) I had removed my comment before you replied to it, which must have presented you with some edit conflict even if you began to reply before I did so. I am not sure why you have restored my comment. 2) I do not know what you mean by "trolling", but I acknowledge that I failed to notice the final screenshot. 3) I'm not exactly sure what you are insisting this means. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I lost that whole "good faith" thing that is supposed to be kept in these discussions and thought you were trolling, probably because DrWho42 just tried to pass off a parody of an offshoot of his own facebook group as a real collection of people who can be canvassed and I thought you would already be aware. When copying over my comment, I copied over the entire block, I didn't notice that the edit conflict had to do with more than signing my comment. If you want to remove it, just delete this thread up to my initial reply to DrWho42 with imgur links. My apologies.--Shibbolethink (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgiving my new account as I've decided not to go with my old, very embarassing and innuendo laden name, I'd like to go forward with what I have to say. To be fair I was also in the group Banned From Cool Freaks (before Mike Kaminsky banned me for, well, being a notable member of CFWC), and User talk:DrWho42 knows me, and yet that Mike Kaminsky regularly went out of their way to sling slurs at me constantly and that was their only interaction with me. You've proven that there's a loose collection of characters that had a same name, their spontaneous creation was more than 6 months ago however, and they haven't really been active especially no evidence of any collaboration by them especially of late. The Mike Kaminsky that was shown as the admin of Banned from Cool Freaks is literally the only active Mike Ka*insky I've seen. On top of which, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove by claiming that User talk:DrWho42 is Mike Kaminsky or what he would even gain by showing people who would have animosity for Cool Freaks Wikipedia club that we're disputing the Wikipedia Page. --Paradoxparasol (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Paradoxparasol (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm not Mike Kaminsky but I can blank the name if it pleases the discussion. As far as I know, Mike Kaminsky is a meme based on the comedic device of repetition which in this case is several Facebook accounts all claiming to be Mike Kaminsky.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFREE only applies to real names of people in screenshots.--Shibbolethink (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reality of Facebook names is a digression of this discussion as many Facebook users adopt new names to reflect their identity and I would not argue this point further. For example, Facebook real-name policy controversy. I respect the wishes of this discussion to omit names from my screenshots and thus have done so.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Boomur, the page is biased towards the group because positive responses are much better documented in the page than negative ones. Also, I fail to see how the fact that the Facebook page has 30,000 members makes it notable. There are plenty of subreddits with a lot more subscribers than CFWC has members, but that doesn't mean they need their own Wikipedia page. IamA and TIL are both subsections of the article for Reddit, and each have over 7 million subscribers http://redditlist.com/. If they aren't notable enough for their own pages, why is CFWC? WatsonCaesar (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — WatsonCaesar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also, TIL and IAMA have many third party references in the annals of various news organizations: VizWorld, ComicBook.com, and The Washington Post. --Shibbolethink (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely that's more of an argument for editors to make articles for TIL/IAMA if they meet the notability criteria as you have posited than for the CFWC article to be removed. An article meeting notability criteria should not be deleted simply because other potentially notable subjects have not yet had articles created for them, editors who are well-versed in the subject should be filling in the gaps. Felineastatine (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Felineastatine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I didn't suggest that IamA or any other subreddit meets the notability requirement (quite the opposite in fact). I think they are served quite well by their current entries as part of the main article for Reddit, and that if larger, more influential groups don't meet the requirement for notability, then neither does CFWC. WatsonCaesar (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not require that all views are given equal page space, but that they are represented equal to their coverage; if you have more positive reception than negative it would be false balance to write equal lengths covering each. I think the article does this fine. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Also I noticed that there was a link to this deletion discussion posted in CFWC about an hour ago (along with an earlier request for the removal of a speedy deletion tag from this article on the Afrikaans Wikipedia) which I think makes an excellent case for this page just being a promotional tool. WatsonCaesar (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll be honest and say, as a member, i'm biased. Shibbolethink, however, you refer to the moderation policies as "fascist" in a manner that implies that you agree with that assessment, making you look pretty biased against the group. Look, this is a comprehensive, well researched, well sourced article for a facebook group with a large number of members, and dare i say the article shows a pretty neutral point of view. There are plenty of articles here that don't meet the notability standards, but this is one that, while NOT NECESSARILY meeting the standards (I'll be honest, i don't know where i stand on that), seems to be tagged for deletion much quicker than many other non-notable articles. I say, as it's a facebook group that has been reported on by major publications, that that does qualify it as notable, and i'd say keep. drlemon98 03:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that drlemon98 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Comment hi if you meant that you are a member of that Facebook group, then I would suggest you are better off not voting due to WP:COISELF. Please change your vote to a Comment. AadaamS (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that's a little excessive. The Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club article has nothing to do with drlemon98, their family, or any personal pursuit of theirs. Members of the group are not receiving money from the group, nor are they financially invested in it. Being a part of the group does not necessarily advance the group's interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests—why should it? The level of COI for anyone who is not an administrator of the group is pretty low, I think. Subscribing to The New York Times doesn't make someone ineligible to write about it. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never maintained that users in that group should not write about the group, on the contrary, I would welcome if users in the group could find WP:RS to support their claim that the group is notable. I wrote that they should refrain from voting, not writing. I take it you don't agree so we'll have to agree to disagree. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The usage of the word "fascist" is literally the exact same wording as that in the vice article. I should have put quotes around it. "Periodically I see outbursts from members of CFWC pop up in my feed—people driven to Network-style meltdowns about the fascist hypersensitivity of the Cool Freaks' moderators. Those tirades quickly disappear as the writer is booted and the page is scrubbed clean again."-River Donaghey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibbolethink (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This page is 100% promotional material for a Facebook page. It is a prime example of bias within Wikipedia. As a researcher I regularly use Wikipedia in order to answer questions and aid in my research. A number of my colleagues argue that a mass-user encyclopedia is not a reputable source, while I disagree. However, when editors blatantly ignore a relatively simple epistemological criteria for distinguishing "knowledge" from "non-knowledge", they strike at the importance of this knowledge. There is no informational value to knowing about this facebook page, there is no scholarly value to knowing about this facebook page, and there is no consistent sense of incompleteness without this page. To keep it is a strike against the increasingly free spread of knowledge. Lxplot (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: it should be noted that User:Lxplot has removed their SPA tag despite having made few edits.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment User: DrWho42, I have made a larger number of edits than you on a larger number of topics (you vs. me. If there is any legitimate reason for me to be tagged as SPA, please explain why it does not apply to you as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxplot (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: correction, DoctorWho42.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment DrWho42, why do you have two accounts?--Shibbolethink (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, that was confusing. Regardless, it can be observed that I've made contributions to topics in my area of expertise (read: not this) Lxplot (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Firstly, I am a member of the group (not a moderator, not a frequent commenter, just a member). Wikipedia only decides whether articles are suitable subjects for inclusion based on their coverage in reliable third party sources. This article has enough of such sources in my opinion. I'm not at all convinced by any of the above delete rationales - articles simply aren't deleted because of their authors, but based on whether they adequately meet the notability guidelines. If you don't think the subject has been covered in sufficient reliable sources then argue that - arguments based on the author or that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on similar subjects aren't valid. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I really think everyone above is misunderstanding the use of such "other examples." The point is that these subdivisions of Facebook and Reddit are not notable on their own. They only exist as groups of people on Facebook or Reddit to organize people who like Wikipedia. They don't do anything else, they have no other purpose. There should exist a higher bar of notability for such subjects, or else there are INFINITE subdivisions of what should be on Wikipedia. All the third party sources simply discuss the groups existence, and most of those references are personal blog posts themselves. If I go on my tumblr web blog and say, "I love using /r/Wikipedia." I don't think it qualifies as a third party source providing notability. That's the nature of most of the external sources Boomur and DrWho42 are using: web blogs from people who have used the Facebook Group. Also, it's important to say, the amount of members in the group should be thought of under the lens of other group memberships, and the total userbase of Facebook as a whole. This listicle: "The 25 Facebook groups with over 1 million members" shows how inflated membership numbers in Facebook groups can be. Each of these has more than 33 1/3 times as many members as Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club, has been mentioned in several third party news sources (listicles and web blogs and tweets), but I really do not think they are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Even moreso, there's something very interesting about most of the entries in that listicle: they no longer exist! This is because Facebook Groups and Subreddits are both inherently unstable! CFWC shuffles around 90% of its moderators every couple of weeks, and Subreddits are well known for their lack of stability, and that's why they get deleted so often! And that's why they should have a higher bar of notability.--Shibbolethink (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As an administrator of the group, I'm refraining from the vote, but I would like to point out that your claim that "90% of its moderators are shuffled every couple of weeks" is completely false and unsubstantiated. If you are going to make arguments toward the merits of its notability, you cannot simply will other realities into existence. There are over three dozen moderators -- all of whom have been steady since my tenure began over seven months ago. I'd like to note that when you come to edit this discussion, the prompt at the top does specifically say that unsupported statements have little weight in the discussion. Nb. as you continue this arbitrary -- and, dare I add, regarding your account, single-purpose? -- crusade against this specific page. --Stellaproiectura (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Calling me a single purpose account is a very serious accusation that should be backed up with evidence. If you'll take a look at my userpage, you'll see that I created this account a while before the CFWC page even existed. Also, I engaged in edits of various other disparate articles between then and now, and continue to do so. So I suggest you research a /little/ bit more before saying such, as you say, unsubstantiated claims. Unfortunately, I don't have the Admin list from Facebook over time, but I do have screenshots that are from specific former Admins that time and time again "step down or are forced out." I'll grab those in a sec --Shibbolethink (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi as a member of the Facebook group I would suggest that you refrain from voting, please change your keep vote to a comment due to WP:COISELF. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted that you suggest I refrain from voting but I'm not going to strike my vote simply because I happen to be in the group. I don't run it, I don't even frequently post there. This would be akin to suggesting I'm not allowed to vote on an AfD for a cereal brand because I happen to eat it. Sam Walton (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the subject of that page lacks notability per the WP:GNG as no WP:RS verifies the notability of the subject Facebook group. AadaamS (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentFurther Self-promotion evidence lies in the correlation of the view statistics and the posts on the group itself. Seen here, one can notice the massive spike in views (about 3400) coinciding with December 30th. That was also the day of the article's creation, and the day that wikipedia user DrWho42 posted this on the public group, using the conversion of UTC on those Facebook times, it's clear the views of the article directly followed this post. 3400 views that day, and then nothing more, as that post in the Facebook group itself sank to the bottom. I therefore posit that the only views this article gets are from people who are in the group itself, and those who want to see it deleted, and a small minority of random other people. The only people who have written the article are those who are prominent members of the group, and the only views they have received are from all the other members. I think this is a product of the "herd mentality" that this group demonstrates. I don't want to pass any opinions on the political leanings of the group or anything like that, but, if one were to read this sandbox article from DrWho42, it's clear how much self promotion this group's normal proceedings entail. I wager that the creation of this public wikipedia page is just an extension of that self-promotion. --Shibbolethink (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Page views are also not a valid reason for deleting an article. For probably the third time, this article being created for promotion is not an adequate reason for deletion. Valid reasons should be based on the existence or lack of reliable sources covering the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, an article being created for promotion IS an adequate reason for deletion. See here: What is deletion for? and then click " What Wikipedia is Not" and scroll down to " Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". --Shibbolethink (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first link is an essay, not a guideline or policy. WP:PROMOTION says nothing about deletion policy, just that Wikipedia isn't for advertisement. The actual policy page you're looking for is WP:DELETE which states that reasons for deletion may include "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" (emphasis mine). Thus, please feel free to argue that the content isn't encyclopedic or doesn't meet notability, but don't falsely claim that just because an article may have been started for advertisement purposes that it should be deleted without question. Sam Walton (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first article says, right at the top: "This page is here to help familiarize you with some of the guidelines and policies relevant to deletion." Also, it's not about being started for advertising purposes, it's about existing as a promotion. WP:Promotion is very much a valid reason for deleting an article. Especially when notability isn't met.--Shibbolethink (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete subject is laughably un-notable. No one cares about it except the members themselves. We might as well have Wikipedia articles for individual subreddits or MySpace pages or that random guy on Facebook who inexplicably has 4,996 friends. --Jtle515 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the delete voters please go through each source used in the article and explain why each isn't a reliable source? Do that and I'll change my vote to delete because you'll have convinced me that the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Saying you don't feel like the subject is suitable or that the article was created by a COI editor are not valid arguments. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Imho it is also up to the creator/keepers of the article to demonstrate how the article satisfies WP:WEB: When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.. Also, it's not enough that a subject is mentined in a WP:RS that source must also explain why the subject of this article is important along the guideline of the previously text in italics. No source in the article has demonstrated why that Facebook group is important. It hasn't won any awards, it hasn't a large number of mentions in mainstream media and no source demonstrates significant IRL impact. The article needs better sources to verify its notability if it is to stay a standalone. Which sources do you think verifies the notability of that Facebook group alonge the lines of WP:WEB? AadaamS (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the sources in the article; BetaBeat, a subset of the New York Observer, have an article which describes the group as "the Only Facebook Group You Need" and seems to be a reliable source. The mic.com article seems reliable, written by a member of staff of a website which seems to provide editorial oversight. I'm pretty sure Vice is a reliable source, with quite a long article covering many aspects of the group written by a staff writer. The Tab is debatable, the author doesn't seem to have written many articles and I believe it's a student-run website. The other references are also debatable, some being blogs, but I think the above three and the article make this a borderline keep. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Sam Walton (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, yes the NY Observer and Vice (magazine) are indeed reliable sources, but is there a consensus among internet experts that CFWC is the only Facebook group a FB user needs? Not that I know of. Neither article mentions any impact the group has had on anything like culture, history, society, economics, science or anything at all. So while the sources themselves are reliable, they don't verify the notability of CFWC. The Tab is a student magazine and they don't count as WP:RS. The Wellington Library is a trivial mention and so it also doesn't help to establish notability. AadaamS (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to adhere to WP:N by almost any measure. 30,000 members is hardly a large number for a Facebook group-there are numerous Facebook groups with over a million members that warrant no entry, why should this be any different. Article is obvious self-promotion, and violates WP:PROMO. Also doesn't really have WP:NPOV, as those who have created page and introduced most edits are admins of said group. There is also very little reason why this is important. As has been said, every other Subreddit or chat room or sub-forum on other Internet sites warrants a Wikipedia page, why should CFWC be any different? Not to mention a severe lack of sources, nor any other external references. Blueshirt21 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Blueshirt21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Per Sam Walton above. Article is informative, group is notable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wwwhatsup (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Not canvassed. But a member of the group. I put the Wikipedia page on my watchlist when I joined. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: An admin of the "banned from CFWC" Facebook group The Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia, which User:Shibbolethink mentioned, has been canvassing its ~800 members. Source: imgur screenshot--DrWho42 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was also sent that message, and I can speak to the rest of the message that you edited out. It said the following: "Don't just go to the article and start commenting/voting if you don't already have an editor account. That's against the rules, and you should have an editor account anyway. If you want to comment and don't have an account, actually USE your editor's account in other articles, both because it shows that you're a real person who cares and therefore it's not breaking the rules, but also because editing is fun." --Shibbolethink (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you can't post screenshots of Facebook with user's names included on Wikipedia. It's against WP:NOTFREE. Take it down please.--Shibbolethink (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've edited out the names but that is the full transcript based on what I've received personally.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I know I'm not supposed to comment without an account, but I'm the author of that message. It was sent to ~7 people who I personally know and Shibbolethink is right, I discourage explicitly people who hadn't used wikipedia before from commenting. That's against the ruels. Also, It was not sent broadly to users of DPRW, or "canvassed" or posted anywhere publicly.--205.208.122.25 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia is not a "banned from CFWC" group. The cross list of its members with those that are banned from CFWC is not the majority. Most of the members have never heard of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club.--205.208.122.126 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with some of the other comments that this page is 100% promotional material for the group and should therefore not be allowed on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but a bunch of people on Facebook who share Wikipedia articles with each other cannot be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination. Whitehat2009 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Whitehat2009 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are indeed right because so far, the keepers have not managed to demonstrate how to verify its notability per WP:WEB. AadaamS (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting from WP:WEBCRIT here: "non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" This is particularly damning. As you said, the Keeps have to show that CFWC "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * please explain why you continue to claim that all the article's sources are self-published blog posts by group members. It has been established above that the article uses reliable third party sources. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 19:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all, I said "most of those references are personal blog posts themselves" and most of them are. The Atlantic mention, the library mention, the Honi Suit article is barely about CFWC, it's a virtual listicle just like the Paste article. The Tab doesn't employ professional journalists, neither does Honi Suit. Honestly the only two possibly worthwhile sources for proving notability are Vice and Mic. The Mic.com article, btw, isn't searchable or referenced in any other aspect of the Mic.com site itself. When you search Mic.com, it doesn't show up. I suspect this is because the art.mic.com contributor in question, Gabe Berado's articles on Social Media don't merit site-wide mention. And the Vice article doesn't really contribute to notability so much as lack thereof. The entire article is about how unstable the Facebook group is. If this group disappeared tomorrow because of a massive coup by one or two admins, as has happened in the past history of the group (see here), society as a whole wouldn't even notice. The third party sources themselves probably wouldn't even alter their articles. The only people aware of the change would be the group's members themselves. You guys. Honestly, you should just make a notable groups subheading on the Facebook article and be happy.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , also, it's important to realize that the WP:RS standards are actually pretty stringent. School newspapers, opinion pieces, editorials, and other such non fact based articles are less reliable for notability. Especially when considering the bias of some authors. If the editor of a piece is close personal friends with an admin of CFWC, that lessens the notability addition of that article. The article I'm alluding to hasn't been published yet, but when it is, I don't think it'll help the notability case that much. For reference, here's a quote from WP:RS: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces."--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Although a number of verifiable references have been cited, the topic probably falls short of the requirement: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" detailed in WP:WEBCRIT. The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers -- not particularly reliable. Piboy51 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Group is big enough and influential enough to be notable, article is unbiased. The only criticisms of bias come from people who really go and try hard to find things that the article doesn't mention. Vhata (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (PST)
 * Delete - size is not a primary guide to inclusion, neither is there any verifiable evidence presented of the group being wp:rs "influential enough to be notable" - The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers - not particularly good quality sources to establish WP:Notability - fails WP:WEBCRIT and wp:web and the WP:GNG imo Govindaharihari (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Is pretty evidently notable, more so than some political parties or movements.  Royal Mate1  00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is evident. Stamboliyski (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is certainly not evident. I agree with the comment above that content does not meet the requirement that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". There is a lot of noise above that should be ignored. Members of the group should certainly be allowed to have a say here. There is no conflict of interest. I am not a member and do not intend to join it, but if I was a member, I would still think it did not deserve an article. There is no reason why being a member means you support having an article. All members are wikipedians who know how wikipedia works, or at least should do. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Bduke really hit it on the head here. Myself and several others have been somewhat overzealous in requesting COI or lack of votes from members of the group, as one does not imply the other. But even so, a rational third party observer who reads WP:RS, WP:AKON, and WP:N, and WP:WEB, and then this AfD, and the source article, is forced to conclude that the article in question doesn't meet these grounds: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice." AND "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."--Shibbolethink (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is evident. EricthePinko (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic's notability is not "evident" as a number of people think the article is non-notable. Would you please explain why you think the article is notable? Piboy51 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As an addition to the explanation, verifiable evidence for its notability has to be demonstrated. Deletion discussions of truly notable subjects usually end very quickly in a hurricane of such evidence provided by those who want to keep the article. AadaamS (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article fulfills notability guidelines based on reliable third-party sources as demonstrated by The New York Observer, Fast Company, and Mic. Due to this substantial coverage, Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club should remain along the ranks of Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review since it reflects how the wiki translates into human culture with "memes" like toast sandwich and list of lists of lists. Its criticism is also balanced based on the reporting thus far and shows the general consensus until more news accumulates.--Electricbolt (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipediocracy is an irrelevant comparison because that article has about 4 times as many sources and is mentioned in 3 mainstream newspappers: The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. Unlike the sources for this article, those mentions in the newspapers also demonstrate the impact of Wikipediocracy. The sources you refer to in your vote only demonstrate that the group is there and how it functions, there is no mention of impact as per WP:WEBCRIT. AadaamS (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability hinges on junk food news sources, not the significant coverage in non-trivial works that WP:N speaks of. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – The topic meets WP:WEBCRIT per coverage in New York Observer, Vice, Mic. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, nice secondary source discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm a member, not an admin of the group, and after reading this thread I'm not convinced being one of 30,000 members is a COI; thus, I'm marking this post "Keep."  I believe this article should not be deleted because decentralized online communities like these facebook groups carry significant weight in globalized culture. Who these people are, why they are organized, and what rules they use to govern themselves are significant and interesting questions. The online sources supplied demonstrate that there is external interest in the topic, and that Cool Freaks and its related groups are notable. Does the article have some issues? Yes. Does it need a rewrite? Probably. But such is not an argument for deletion. Jordanbowden (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Jordanbowden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Atlantic, Vice, and other good RS's do, in fact, prove notability. I saw a few comments about subreddits getting their own pages, and if there's enough sources to prove notability, then why not? It's tempting to fall into a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but we should avoid these. Is this article self-referential? Sure, but again, we have the independent sources, so we're fine with articles like this about Wikipedia-related stuff. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Whilst the sources are "independent", they're hardly *good* sources - most just detail what the group is. I and my friends could go out and write four or five personal blog pieces about a group of our choice on LinkedIn that has even more members - that doesn't mean that group would deserve its own wiki page. This article is quite clearly self promotion, and also is of no interest to anyone who isn't in or close to the group - as shown by the complete lack of reputable sources. The "New York Observer" source is also a little misleading - the piece wasn't published in the newspaper, it was published in an online blog which is operated by the newspaper group. Jbjp91 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Jbjp91 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.