Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melodramatic (website)


 * 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Melodramatic (website)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deleted prod because it fails WP:WEB. Contested, so AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Compares itself to myspace. Unlike myspace, however, no third parties seem to be commenting about this website.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." That is lacking here.  As I mention below, there is only the LA Weekly interview, where the interviewee glossily mentions Melodramtic once in the course of an interview. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:WEB, WP:SOURCE, and per the fact that wikipedia is not a directory. -- Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι  τ  оr   20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not really a commercial site, so it is not promoting itself, but it IS an online community, that includes 50,000 plus members, mainly in California, but has spread across the world. It has its own unique history, and some background that would be enlightening for a person who bumps into the community.  Also, Jeffree Star, a person of note on MySpace, HAS mentioned the site in a couple of interviews, most recently in LA Times, a couple of weeks ago.  User: Apsedona  Timestamp function? I'd have to look it up June 1, 2007, 11:24 MST Whether Wiki users consider Star notable or not, Melodramatic has been mentioned in a major publication, (LA Weekly, not LA Times) which is one of THE defining criteria for keeping an article about a website.  User:Apsedona 1:15 am MST, June 2, 2007
 * Delete, commercial or not, it's still a non-notable website. Should have been speedied.  Jefree Star has frequently been discussed on Wikipedia and has repeatedly been decided as not notable, so his opinion is of no consequence.  Corvus cornix 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is notable for its programming design, which shares many features that other friend/journal communities share, yet was developed in isolation from them. Anyway, it meets one of the three criteria for website articles. [Whether people like that Jeffree Star is noticed by major media is an opinion, and it is not objective, which is the aim of an encyclopedia. I'm sure there is an entry in Wiki on Paris Hilton, although she is also merely famous for being famous.  She has some notability, whether people like it or not, or whether people consider her to be culturally significant, or not (which she is, because she has become a sex goddess, an icon of sexuality, of her time - and I don't particularly like her, or dislike her either, for that matter).  In the same vein, Star has some notability for being a SUCCESSFUL transvestite and promoting his particular magnetism, whether certain users deem him culturally significant or not, Star is notable because MySpace is a cultural phenomenon, and he is one of the one of the few who has successfully exploited it for commercial advantage, enough to get published in LA Weekly, ABC interviews, etc.  If my mother had heard of Jeffree Star, and a media source had failed to qualify who he was, she might very well go to Wikipedia....and be denied basic culturally significant information???? Even a basic entry???  I'm sorry, that's just prejudice, its not objective.  You may not LIKE that Clinton cheated on his wife with an intern in the Oval Office, but you are not going to mention it in Wikipedia?  Sorry, Star is culturally significant, whether you, me or anybody else likes it, or not.User:Apsedona 1:47 am MST, June 2, 2007
 * Whether you like Jeffree Star's "opinion" or not, it is 20/20's opinion, and LA Weekly's opinion that is really at issue here, in reporting about him. Wikipedia shouldn't really be deciding who is worthy of being infamous.  Examples include Christina Aguilera, for one, for being quite controversial; I wouldn't mind her being excluded from Wikipedia, if you want to make Wiki arrogant, stuffy, and irrelevant to contemporary cultural society.  Another infamous, questionably relevant, but then again highly entertaining and totally worthwhile character on Wiki: General Butt Naked. User:Apsedona 3:30 am MST, June 2, 2007
 * Furthermore, the article I reference from LA Weekly reports that Star had a fan base BEFORE he arrived on MySpace, that helped propel his notoriety. It's not about Star's opinion, (or even LA Weekly's opinion) its about him stating facts, and being reported in a RELIABLE publication, per WP:WEB, WP:SOURCE. User:Apsedona 3:36 am MST, June 2, 2007
 * You'll have to pardon my cultural illiteracy, but I don't know Jeffree Star. I looked at the LA Weekly reference (the only third party source for this article).  Jeffree Star mentions Melodramatic.com once in the interview.  I find that kind of...unimpressive... &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The site is, as has been pointed out, not commercial, and does have legions of users. The Star citations have been noted; another Melodramatic personality, Maggie Fiasco, was recently featured on Jimmy Kimmel Live. It's notable for its unique history, as User:Apsedona has said, and for it's unique features, eg Karma. &mdash; Beobach972 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Certain individuals may be encyclopedic, but this doesn't mean any website they use or mention is encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, it fits the criteria for a website, according to existing Wiki guidelines, that it has been mentioned in a reliable publication. I think helping to bring along 30,000 users to a new site has some substance.  71.223.172.130 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: while I agree that this meets the guidelines as it has been mentioned in a reliable publication, I am not sure I understand the latter part of your comment. If you are suggesting that the Wikipedia entry be kept to guide users to the site, please be aware that such an arguement is irrelevent; we operate on notability &c. If you are arguing that the site is notable for and at least partly because of its large user base, I concur with you. &mdash; Beobach972 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:35, 6 June 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.