Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Friendster


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Friendster
Political Friendster clearly fails all criteria of WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; the website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation; and the content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The current Alexa ranking is 442,990. Delete. JDoorj a m    Talk 01:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn student project, that probably violates Friendster's copyright, despite their claims that it constitutes a parody. Fan1967 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB, but that aside, it looks and feels like a poor man's Friendster, and "created by students at Stanford University for educational purposes" sounds like it was made up in school one day to me. -- Kinu  t /c  01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, literally. Hadn't even thought of that one. JDoorj a m     Talk


 * Delete, as per nom. BrownHairedGirl 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say a | Yahoo Pick of the Week constitutes a "well known and independent award." --djrobgordon 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn website, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nce Ong 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. WP:Web is 1 guideline and not a requirement: "page gives some rough guidelines". In addition, the violation is not clear.  There is the already noted Yahoo pick.  Google_test also shows its 3 month change details are all up. 210,000 Google results, though most are hits on  pages (which does say something for the amount of content it has).  73 Wikipedia pages.  SmartMobs has an entry for it.  Answers.com has an entry for it. afterdowningstreet.org links to it. Knoxville News links to it. metafilter.com has an entry for it.--Halliburton Shill 03:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Google search for Wikipedia pages using this term come up with the article, one user talk, and 23 further unique hits (all of the ones I looked at either had the term as an external link, or no response to a text search for the term). The Answers.com article is a copy of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Alexa says this site has not been in the top 100,000 websites at any time in the past two years. The Smartmobs.com hit consists of three sentances and an image in a bloglike posting. The Knoxville news hits (although subscriber, so I can;t check thoroughly) are all classified under the heading Fun Stuff. The Afterdowningstreet.org hit is a link posted in a comments section underneath the main article about the voting over something in the US parliament. And, finally, just because a source is useful (and I am questioning this) does not mean that it is automatically notable. -- Saberwyn 06:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And, of course, according to picks.yahoo.com, Yahoo picks 5-10 web sites a week to be the "pick of the week," so, mathematically, it's more like pick of the day. JDoorj a m    Talk 13:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete- I'm not sold on Yahoo's site of the week being a "well-known award". I see no other convincing claims to notability, and it sounds like something made up in school one day. Reyk 04:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --kingboyk 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep only because of Yahoo! ProhibitOnions 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Saberwyn, Kinu, etc.... Eusebeus 12:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. Notability is extremely questionable, but I believe we should err on the side of caution.  Powers 13:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, relatively unknown site. Rhobite 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as it seems not to be either remarkable or influential. Just another website, and WP:NOT a web directory. Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Something made up in college one day. --Mmx1 16:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, relatively unknown site Jonas Silk 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 18:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Mr. Kinu. I'm not buying the Yahoo "site-of-the-week" as a "well known award", either. Not all that remarkable of a site.  Kuru   talk  01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Data for other sources. --Masssiveego 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on that? JDoorj a m    Talk 05:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are over a thousand Yahoo picks; it's practically a web directory in itself, and Wikipedia is not. Melchoir 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising the site. not notable. crap article. Newyorktimescrossword 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's an interesting concept that has fostered a large cult following. If you ask me, I think it's probably one of the more functional uses for social networking. Above all, the article was notable because of the other articles on Wikipedia that referenced the website, that was until User:Rhobite unanimously decided the "site is hopelessly POV and inaccurate". --Howrealisreal 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: More than anything, that seems to be a commentary on the fact that something non-notable can be quietly put all over Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. But I suppose that depends on your point of view.  Regardless, if "above all" is that other articles linked to it in the encyclopedia anyone can edit... then it ain't above much: if existing in Wikipedia were a sign of notability, you could never delete anything. JDoorj a m     Talk 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the external links section of articles (where Political Friendster is showing up throughout Wikipedia) is fair space for any POV, especially those that may not be "suitable" to be referenced directly in the actual article body. On the other hand, some editors have decided themselves that the Political Friendster is totally invalid, has no notability at all (playing down its large membership and Yahoo designation), and have decided to censor it completely out of the encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but how free is this encyclopedia when a website can only be added "loudly" to external links of relevant articles. This whole Afd is subjective and politically driven. How about altering the Political Friendster article to address your concerns about its validity (a reason why the article was created in the first place), instead of just trying to delete every reference to it? --Howrealisreal 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You should read the conversation about Political Friendster that went on at Talk:Dick Cheney for reasons why it's an inappropriate external link. And I think it's a fair bar above which external links must rise to say that, yes, you should be able to "loudly" add an external link to Wikipedia.  You should be able to go onto the talk page and declare, "I am adding such and such a web site, the content of which is such and such" and there shouldn't be a violent backlash.  I'm not saying you should have to do that, but you definitely should be able to.  How is this AfD politically driven, exactly?  And if I don't think Political Friendster is relevant, how is my altering the language of the article going to help that? JDoorj a m     Talk 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Re JDoorjam's comments, if anything non-notable can be put on Wikipedia in the first place, then it has no place restricting more non-notable sources to comment on the earlier non-notable sources.  As for the Dick Cheney talk page, that seems POV driven (and non-notable POVs at that) dislike to the humorous approach taken as opposed to whether its content is factual.  Compare how many Wikipedia pages link to The Onion article, which is 100% parody news, yet very notable. —This unsigned comment is by Pro-Lick (talk • contribs).
 * I don't understand your first sentence. Non-notable things should not be put on Wikipedia.  As Rhobite pointed out in Talk:Dick Cheney, the material is not factual.  You'll have to give me some specific examples about articles linking to the Onion for me to comment on that statement. JDoorj a m     Talk 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the conversation at Talk:Dick Cheney, I see that only you and Rhobite are strongly opposed to the use of Political Friendster as an external link (which clearly explains this Afd). Don't you think it's pretty unfair for both of you to personally decide what is legit or not for inclusion in a free encyclopedia? You make it seem like content needs to be expressed "loudly" and get your clearance or it is not relevant. If not, than why this Afd? You, yourself even know that is not correct. Furthermore, Pro-Lick is absolutely correct. If you have beef with Political Friendster that can be proven beyond your subjective POV (which has yet to be materialized), add it to the article about the website (noting the restrictions on original research). This is totally the wrong way to go about it. Regards --Howrealisreal 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, my opposition to its use is only tangentially related to this AfD: I was unaware of its existence until someone tried to link to it from Dick Cheney. For instance, I could oppose the use of an article from the Drudge Report on Hillary Clinton's page, but would not ever suggest deleting The Drudge Report.  Political Friendster has the dual distinction of being hopelessly inaccurate and not notable enough to warrant its own article.  As I very clearly stated in my comment, "I'm not saying you should ''have to (state it loudly), but you should definitely be able to."  So, no, I don't think everything needs to be run by me, or anyone.  With that said, no, I don't think it's unfair for anyone to personally decide what is legit or not.  That's the whole point of the Wiki model.  And I'm still not clear how adding "some people do not believe that Political Friendster is notable enough for Wikipedia" to the article about Political Friendster is going to fix anything (leaving aside its obvious violation of Wikipedia's self-reference policy).  Now, could you explain what you mean about my "subjective POV (which has yet to be materialized"? [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj a m     Talk 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. -- pm_shef 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Yahoo pick of the week, as noted, picks way more then one a week. Site of the Day (more or less) does not cut it. -AKMask 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per djrobgordon. Stifle 00:08, 17 March
 * Delete Per nom. Cursive 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment from closing administrator: JDoorj hits the mark. Wikipedia is not "free" in the sense that you can add anything to it. In any case, it is not free because you agree to collaborate with others and subject yourself to policies, which have to be applied by fallible human beings, and yes, subjectively. How else? On the issue of notability: something has to be notable in some way to appear in Wikipedia, but the converse should not be considered when discussing the notability of something in e. g. AfD. That is, Wikipedia is not a valid reference for demonstrating the notability of something. The "keep" opinions have been taken into account, but the core of the matter seems to be disagreement on policies and on "delete" voters' opinions; those things should be taken to the relevant talk pages, not to an AfD debate. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:19, 18 March 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.