Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POnju


 * 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. W.marsh 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

POnju
Appears to be non-notable forum. Article is unreferenced and unverifiable. Alexa reveals a traffic rank of 1,824,095  Canadian - Bacon   t  c   e 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC) pOnju does not contain any of the following things, aside from it being an internet guide. This means the only real problem is cleaning out some of the cruft and rendering it in encyclopedic tone. User:bulmabriefs144
 * Comment: Can we delay this for a little? Edits to this article are currently being used as evidence in a WP:RFC against POnju. If the article is deleted, the evidence by way of his edits won't be accessible to people who need to read it to make a decision. Xuanwu 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No more delay please - just delete it. Revenge against pOnju for Xuanwu being banned from pOnju forums (again) is no reason for the article to be preserved.  Xuanwu, it won't give you satisfaction to get pOnju banned here: he doesn't care about Wikipedia, he just wanted to correct half-truths.Jonathan888 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Another comment: Alexa rank is not a valid measure of notability. It's why it was removed from WP:WEB. I agree it's currently unreferenced, but I don't think it is impossible to correct that situation. Xuanwu 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could the page and talk page(I presume that's where the evidence is) possibly be moved to User Space if the vote was to delete, in order to maintain the evidence?  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, never done one of these before and I'm kinda green, so I'm not really sure if it saves my info automatically or whether I need to fill it in. Who keeps putting notices about the subject's "importance" is that ponju? Alot of those notations have no meaning. The unverified link is sorta valid as there are alot of people that just come up an say stuff, but encyclopedic tone is irrelevent as it is written about ponju for ponju members, there are not many refernces to actually cite as it does not draw any outside info, and the importance is irrelevant as it is a fangroup type site and as such has no importance outside the site, unlike Chiromancy. There's a link to the history of ponju in my account, if you want evidence. Though I'd rather the ponju section not be closed (anymore than Okashina Okashi) as it is a informational link. User:bulmabriefs144
 * Encyclopedic tone, outside sources and importance are irrelevant no matter what we are writing about. This is an encyclodia, not an Indescriminent collection of information. Also information that "is a fangroup type site and as such has no importance outside the site" is commonly refered to as Cruft and is usually deleted.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The following is what constitutes indescriminant information:
 * "Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
 * Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
 * Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
 * Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
 * Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
 * Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
 * Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."
 * The fact that it IS an internet guide, means that it fits into that defination. Examples of notable websites are Google and Yahoo. They have information cited from major news sources, proving their worth beyond that of an Internet Guide.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 07:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could not the impact the forum has had on its comics be considered its impact and therefore importance? The many comics the forum hosts have received awards and nominations and the feedback that the forum allows could be held as contributing to the success of its comics. We need an outside source that says that though, correct?
 * Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps before deleting, this could be cleaned up though. It becomes something other than an internet guide if it has encyclopedic tone. Bulmabriefs144 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not just a matter of "tone." It's a matter of no verifiable information from reputable third-party reliable sources that even mentions this trivial topic, let alone suggests it has any sort of notable "achievements, impact or historical significance." That is, this article does not, and appears to have no chance at this time, of meeting WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOT. Not to methion WP:NOR since without reliable sources all we're left with is original research, as well as WP:NPOV since we can't fairly cover all significant published points of view if not even a single point of view is covered by reliable sources. In other words, this fails every single content policy we have. -- Dragonfiend 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm pretty sure I can find a couple offline newspaper articles that mention pOnju. They were printed in a paper local to Worcester, MA. I just need to find time to sift through the old copies I still have lying around. While not a major media source, the paper is at least a reliable source. Also, take into account the Hamthology project: once it's complete, there will be secondary sources that review it and mention its source, making the forum worthy of inclusion. So, a couple articles now that can provide background and help take a little sting off the WP:V and WP:RS violations and the potential future articles mean this entry has hope of becoming encyclopedic. And an article that has the potential to be encyclopedic should not be deleted, just cleaned up. Xuanwu 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything the edits yesterday by User:POnju show how much original research is in the article, not to mention that seeing him edit implies that the article is Vanity.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 05:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunately true: Henry's edits have made the article much more original research and POV than it was when the original team of editors (Pipian, Ed, myself, others) were constructing the page. I've tried my best to keep pOnju's continued insertion of unverfiable items in check. After his RFC is finished, though, he may be barred from editing Wiki, which will largely fix the current edit war problem the article is facing. Xuanwu 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable forum. Has a brief mention of a person named 'pOnju' - might want to merge this to the appropriate article... or not. And why is this discussion so long? No chance I'm reading this crap :P --- RockMFR 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. To a few users like myself it is a notable forum. To the general world it's a minor footnote in a vast sea of webcomics and forums.  It was fun seeing a Wiki article about pOnju, but it really doesn't merit a Wiki page.  The only possible argument I can see for keeping the article is the 'long-tail' theory of Wikipedia: that it is more inclusive in knowledge than Britannia or other encyclopedia sources.  It seems to be worthy of a speedy deletion IMHO since the article has turned into an edit war between the creater of the webpage and users who have been banned from the webpage, and thus any hope for NPOV is lost. 198.50.4.4 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Jonathan888 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (signed in so my comments would be properly signed)
 * Restart. What I would actually agree upon is a delete provided it could be started over from scratch with agreement of no interference from either Ponju himself, or the banned members. It might still degenerate into meaningless information, but maybe a new start telling the various basic points- who it was started by (maybe basic info too), the webcomics hosted there, the Ponju Anthology, and some of the traditions and history- would make it closer to objective form.  Chance are even if it isn't in the local paper, someone would hear mention of it elsewhere online, and want to know about it (similar to how I first learned of Megatokyo).  Not seeing any info would be a mark against Wiki's all-inclusive nature. I mean, just today I found out Wiki also has Klaatu barada nikto as a subject, as well as the Konami Code.  If that isn't geeky, not to mention very irrelevant, I dunno what is. Bulmabriefs144 01:53, 6 October 2006 (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.