Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPod touch Fans

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. It's becoming clear that this was also sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry X clamation point 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod touch Fans

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Speedily deleted four times as a non-notable forum. The latest recreation asserts notability; however, a brief look at the cited sources yields no non-trivial coverage from an appropriate source. Deletion was endorsed at deletion review in June of this year.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant effort went into providing proper citations since the last version of the article that was published at the end of June and deleted. I believe that the cited sources deserver more than a "brief" look before simply dropping the axe on the article. Furthermore, I don't understand why the same editor is reviewing this three months later... can we get some sort of outside opinion here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruelio1998 (talk • contribs) — Cruelio1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete and Salt per WP:WEB. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read WP:WEB. The multiple sources provided do MORE than simply report the internet address, serve as advertising, or simply provide a generic description of the site. Nearly every source describes a specific aspect or contribution of the site, and does so in depth. --Cruelio1998 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to assert notability, sources seem trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any reliable sources. VG ☎ 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please once again look at the sources. Only four of the sources are even to the site, which are references to the other references I might add, and many of the others are notable and reliable Apple related blogs such as TUAW and ArsTechnica. This surely deserves some merit. iPod touch Fans is the largest iPod touch related forum and that itself is worth something. In addition, we have both read through WP:WEB, and iPod touch Fans appears to qualify upon looking through the aforementioned guidelines. In example, iPod touch Fans has been mentioned in the previously mentioned blogs in addition to getting over 800 diggs on the Social News site Digg. I might also note that ArsTechnica and Digg have been verified to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, it is the largest iPod touch related forum with over 200,000 members and 1,000,000 posts. While I must admit that this is not award, it must count for something. Thirdly, it has been distributed on such sites like Digg, TUAW, and ArsTechnica, thus... it looks like it qualifies in all three respects. --mrmoocow44 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in the nom, the few reliable sources only mention the forum in passing (quote from WP:WEB: trivial coverage includes a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site...) While you are correct that Digg and ArsTechnica is notable, being mentioned in either does not automatically confer notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are not "merely mentioning" the site, they are attributing major advances to the members of the site. If I were to report that Stanford University researchers discovered something and link to their site, I am not "merely mentioning" Stanford, but I am establishing its notability as a research university. This is the same thing here, and its unfair to minimize the articles as "mentions." --171.66.37.14 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — 171.66.37.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep How can you assert that the forum is "non-trivial"? It boasts almost 250,000 members, is an authority of iPod Touch related information unlike any other forum available, and is known throughout the community of Apple-related affairs. Various developers of many notable applications spanning from Band (MooTheCow), various emulators (Zodttd), iSoulSeek (errrick), PwnPlayer (errrick once more), and many more all visit the site and use it as an area to spread the news of their applications mainly because they know it is the place/authority to do so. Also, it would be of great help if the articles were allowed to be developed fully before speedily deletion that ignores the above points and much more. As for notability, do a simple Google Search and you'll see that in the area of digital media and Apple, the site is quite Well-Known. Having spawned a separate forum, iPhone Fanatics just because of demand, and high traffic of the site counterpart blog, Hack The iPod Touch. Of course, please take all these into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.187.62 (talk • contribs)
Delete and salt — (edit conflict) I fully agree with the following that was said in the deletion review: I would suggest working on the article in User space until it's complete and fully cited. And cited means via verifiable, third-party sources. Source #1 is a traffic site, not verifiable. Source #2 provides trivial coverage at best. Source #3 is only a WHOIS on the site. Source #4 is a primary source. Source #5 is not only directly related to this site, but also seems like a blog entry. Source #6 is a blog, not verifiable. #7 is merely a drive-by mention of a user on the site. I have no clue of what #8 is supposed to be. I do not see any mention of the site in #9. #10, #11, and #12 are all forum posts from its own site. #13 and #14 are both drive-by mentions from blogs.
Please read WP:SPS, as blogs, including all these in this case, are not considered to be reliable sources. All others provide either only a drive-by mention or trivial coverage; none that I would consider significant coverage (see WP:GNG). "My site is popular and gets lots of traffic" is not a reason to keep (see WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE). MuZemike (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you joking? A source needs to support the claim that is being made. Obviously a link to a traffic site that DIRECTLY MEASURES traffic is a good measure of a site's popularity. Obviously a link to a Whois site is the best way to prove the claim about the date the site was registered. I could go like this one by one, but I won't bother. The point is this: Sources do not stand on their own and should not be evaluated as such, they are a crutch for the claim that is being made, and they should be judged on whether they adequately support the claim that is being made when each source is being cited. --171.66.37.14 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm not. That's not how establishing notability works here. Please re-read everything I have shown above. MuZemike (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know why you feel source #2 is trivial coverage. Looks like more than that to me. Hobit (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a large enough blog on an important subject is notable, and if the membership & posts can be verified, thereshould be an article.DGG (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep There is one decent RS (the second reference) and the traffic to the site is provably quite high. That said, the other sources either aren't RS or don't mention this site. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone show me the two non-trivial coverages in reliable sources? I have yet to hear any keep criteria based on our WP:WEB notability policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. 75.172.24.170 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogs tend to be on the non notable side unless they do something extraordinary to get coverage. This has not got that coverage. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The second reference is a strong one, showing solid coverage from a reliable source. This leads me to believe that other references may be out there, and I'd like to see the article around to accept them. gnfnrf (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a very large forum, with almost a 1/4 million members. It provides great, up-to-date information on the iPod Touch and also serves as a social gathering for anyone who likes the iPod Touch, iPhone, or any other Apple product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.217.24 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salt from high orbit. HiDrNick! 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin There are a lot of random ip addresses and users with this being their only edit. (by random ip, i mean this is the ip's only edit) I'm tempted to file a check user request. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWith a huge community and developers on the site who create applications for the Apple App Store, this is a site just as valid as Bebo (which is crap..) and should be kept as an entry. With about 300,000 members, it's a large enough community to show on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Abcmsaj (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Abcmsaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have filed a request for checkuser for the suspicious votes. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stubbify or merge (i.e. do not keep in current form) after removing most of the content which is derived from the site itself or trivial mentions that do not directly address the subject there is not much left. However the one reliable source is probably enough to support either a very short stub (until such time that more sourcing becomes available) or an entry in a list or article on the broader topic. Guest9999 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources establish notability. To establish notability, the secondary sources must be about the subject. A mere mention in a reference pointing to the existence of this website does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of every website ever created. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second source provides real information about the topic in more than an "in passing" or trivial way. What don't you like about it? Hobit (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.