Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeMee (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WeeMee
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Little big eyed people pics from a website. No sources, no notability established, no anything that would make a real article. Was up for deletion and didn't quite get consensus years back but article was never improved and topic has not gotten any more notable than the lack of notability back then. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Weeme has been used in numerous notable messaging sites for many years.Varbas (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This person was determined to be a sockpuppet. Not sure why the account has not been blocked since then. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WOW. Please use a bit more WP:AGF, as the sockpuppet investigation used their own WP:AGF and made note that the Varbas account did not use abusive sock-puppetry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And what's that got to do with establishing notability for an encyclopedia article? DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Err... and how does trying to smear Varbas establish notability or improve the project? Let's talk edits and not editors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * changed to keep - third party sources have been provided (for some reason, none of these had appeared when I did a google news search a month ago) -- The Red Pen of Doom  10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) delete no thrid party coverage in reliable sources. --  The Red Pen of Doom  19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY Keep per WP:AFTER and significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that need only be added to the article. Their missing is simply a matter for WP:CLEANUP, and AfD is not for cleanup. And for those who do not wish to scan through the Google News results, I am myself firmly convinced of notabiity surpassing the WP:GNG by BBC News, Scotsman (1), Scotland on Sunday, Telegraph, Scotsman (2), Boston Globe, Industry Standard, RedOrbit, Net Imperative (1), Sourcewire, Market Wire, Net Imperative (2), New Media Age, Business Wire (1), Business Wire (2), Wireless News, Telephony, Sunday Herald, and literally dozens upon dozems of others. Perhaps the nom missed these.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold up - Sourcewire, Marketwire, etc. are PRESS RELEASES and not independent sources. Fail our standards miserably. On top of that, looking at the titles of articles here, it looks like the many of the ones ostensibly in real publications are reprints of those press releases and each other with no editorial oversight or changes between those links. You've been voting on AFDs long enough that you should reognize such promotional links, or are you not trying very hard at all to wed them out? In fact I don't know if a single one of that long list is a real news story. Give this a bit while someone clearly not trying to rationalize a Keep vote no matter if it's valid or not sorts through them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. In a very hasty search, some few turned out to be press release. They are not sourcing the article. HOWEVER, many others found ARE acceptable sources. Simply put, sources were and are available. Having looked, I found them. And now that I did so, and though I appreciate the exuberance with which you point out the flawed ones, wouldn't it perhaps better to use the good ones and help improve the article? WP:PRESERVE was not included in WP:Editing policy as some sort of joke. Building the encyclopedia is why we are here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Another reason why BEFORE should become absolutely required with any AfD nom when relevant. It won;t prevent all bad noms, but it will stop at least such   as this. The nom could best demonstrate a commitment to improving WP by withdrawing the nomination & helping put in the refs. DGG (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pshaw. It's up to the people who want there to be an article to prove it deserves one, not the other way around. And the nom was not bad. The fact that the standard people who vote Keep for every AFD they run across are pissed off doesn't mean we need to change policy to make them feel better about themselves. Most of the above links are not good ones at all -- lots of press releases and press release reprints, trivial passing mentions, etc. that fail our requirements for independent, reliable non-trivial sources demonstrating notability. I can best improve Wikipedia by removing such policy-violating edits when they are adding to articles, so if the above links were added I'll have to go through and provide a reality check on all of them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually it is up to a nominator to follow the policy WP:PRESERVE and use the due diligence instructed by WP:AFD and WP:ATD before tossing something in the trash. And in remaining as polite as possible, I had not noted anywhere that WP:AGF had been marked historical.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, from going through them I'm not sure there's a single non-press release in there! Perhaps the editor who put these together would take the time to educate himself on what are real sources and what are not so as to not waste so much time for others. Maybe DDG should look through these things BEFORE he rants and raves about other people not making any effort. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I spent only a very few minutes... and not all of what I found were suitable, but I did find a number that did indeed meet Wikipedia's criteria. And so, to ask politely, what guideline mandated efforts did you yourself undertake to search for sources before nominating the artcle for deletion?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I did a brief Google book search, and found a book to use as a reference for information. When you see just how many millions of people use this thing, and how rapidly its growth is, how can you not believe it notable?  You don't even need third party media references, as the suggestions in the guidelines recommend, when COMMON SENSE would indicate its clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- COMMON SENSE is a pretty poor guideline given its subjectivity and also the fact that common sense can often tell us mutually inconsistent things. I fear that if your views ever gained currency "I like it" would be enough to keep articles of no value. That said, as I note below, I think this article should be kept. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Off topic comment: While the book reference is proper, an editors claim of "common sense" and supposed "poplarity" have not achieved anything close to community consensus as reasons to keep an article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no benefit whatsoever to the encyclopaedia from removing this article. Concerns about due process elucidated above are also relevant.  Skomorokh   18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as multiple non-triv sources have been added. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 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.