Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rate My Poo


 * 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. Discussion indicates that the article relies on two sources for notability. It also appears to be agreed that one of these is a passing mention that can be deemed "trivial coverage". Relying on one source does not meet the notability for websites guideline that requires multiple reliable sources. As a result, this discussion indicates deletion. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rate My Poo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability is not clear. May fail WP:WEB but it is impossible to know without the ability to review the provided references to see if the coverage is more than trivial. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Authors Keep, I created this in good faith knowing it passes WP:WEB. The two references are full length articles about the website itself. You can see a small preview of the full length articles at: Kansas City + Centre Daily Times. Both are reliable sources and are two non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * second alternative link.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - A local newspaper's web site of the day doesn't seem to confer notability. The KC link comes up with an error, so I cannot comment on that one.  I'll keep trying.  If more reliable sources can be provided, I would certainly concede notability.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And just why not? I think you either disagree with WP:WEB or don't understand it, in that case you should be at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web).--Otterathome (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this topic does not meet WP:WEB #2 or #3. Should be no argument about that.  So the argument focuses on #1. The question is whether the coverage is non-trivial.  From the reference that I can verify, the coverage appears to be trivial because it is only a report about a web site of the day in a local newspaper.  It doesn't seem reasonable that every one of the 365 web sites that this local newspaper nominates as its site of the day would be notable.  We don't know what criteria they use.  It seems like it is just a brief summary of the nature of the content which is an exception to notability under #1. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Otterathome -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Otterathome is right it passes WP:WEB and should not be up for deletion. Kyle1278 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Any evidence they are not just mentions, like a quote of a full paragraph? DGG (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The internet archive can't retrieve it because it has been blocked by the news site. Do we have another way to confirm this reference? The problem is that we are left with a preview of an article from a local newspaper .--J.Mundo (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep (or redirect and merge into rotten.com). I'll bypass WP:WEB and argue straight from WP:N.  As a website rmp is only semi-notable because it is only occasionally discussed by serious media, though from personal experience it is widely known.  There's just not a whole lot to say about it.  However, as an internet phenomenon the existence of the site and its shock content is something useful to note.  Knowing that this and other shock sites like it exist is a non-trivial part of an encyclopedic understanding of the state of things on the Internet, and it is a service to the reader to provide that understanding.  For that context, here is a minor mention in a major paper.  Per this salon article (an in depth discussion of rmp's sister sites and parent company, written before the creation of rmp) this is part of a family of similar sites run by a single company that, collectively, raise significant issues of legal jurisdiction over websites, free speech, etc., which is why even if this particular article is deleted the content should be preserved in some form and added instead to the parent article.Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment that argument supports a merge to shock site more than keeping an individual article on the subject. Shock sites are notable, and this is, I guess (never having visited the site), a fairly good example of one.  But by your argument, it is more valuable as information on shock sites in general than as information about this specific one. JulesH (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT?--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no references. None that work, at least. I've found a Centre Daily Times link, but being the "website of the day" doesn't make you notable. Otherwise we'd create 365 articles a year just for that. :) --Conti|✉ 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added an secondary link. References that "don't work" is very different from no references. Your argument has now been invalidated.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where have you added said link? All the references in the article are still not working for me. --Conti|✉ 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Who are we kidding? Two dead reference from local newspapers that only mention the subject, one of them as "site of the week". No evidence of  significant coverage to meet WP:Notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not mentions, they are articles on the website. So they do meet WP:Notability. Your argument has now been invalidated.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Try to find significant and reliable  coverage that establish notability of this website instead of "invalidating" delete arguments. A website can reach a worldwide audience so finding sources should be an easy task. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (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.