Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonkeyFilter

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. --Core desat 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeyFilter

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}}.

"MF is a collaborative or community weblog, where members post links to online content, such as websites or articles, which either amuse or provoke discussion"... so are thousands other contentless blogs with spam and google ads. 75k alexa, a ton of google hits thanks to continuous spamming of other sites, but hey, its easy to tell after the first page there are no relevant results. Delete as non-notable blog site. timecop 05:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--RWR8189 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(s). Let me correct some misinformation. Monkeyfilter has no google ads, nor any advertisements of any kind. Monkeyfilter does not "spam other sites", unless you consider linking to web-sites to be spamming. Monkeyfilter's google pagerank cannot be altered by Wikipedia because all external links from WP are set to rel=nofollow. Monkeyfilter is not contentless, unless you consider comments and discussion to be non-content, in which case MetaFilter is also contentless.
Now some counterpoints. First, MonkeyFilter has been through VfD in 2004, as you can read in Talk:MonkeyFilter. The consensus then was near-unanimous keep. Because of the age of the article, it does not qualify for speedy delete. About notability, MonkeyFilter passes the Google test. It and MetaChat are currently the largest MetaFilter clone sites (clone in the sense of software), including non-trivial overlapping communities, but the three sites have very different foci. Needless to say, being a clone is not a sufficient rationale for deletion: take 2ch and 4chan, for example. A better deletion reason might have been that Monkeyfilter fails to meet WP:WEB, but WP:WEB is only a guideline, and MonkeyFilter is both a website and a community. I can make a case that Monkeyfilter meets WP:ORG and should therefore not be deleted, but I won't because WP:ORG is not yet a guideline. Different editors will have different standards of notability for web-based communities: some, such as the nominator, may think most most blogs are non-notable; others, such as the commentators on the previous VfD, will point out that the size of the Monkeyfilter community is large enough to be notable.
One remedy instead of outright deletion is to merge MonkeyFilter into MetaFilter, This will, of course, have to be brokered with the editors of the latter article, who may not agree to the merge.
Note:I am not "voting" because AfD is not a vote, I am a member of MonkeyFilter (as I have disclosed on my user page), and I have edited the article in question. I have also grown to suspect over time that AFD debates have essentially arbitrary outcomes. Lur 10:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Lur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Fair points that you make, but consider that we have a raft of policies and guidelines as well as common sense to help us make a decision. Hence, the judicious use of WP:WEB and other notability guidelines which this fails. It may look like "Delete per nom" is mindless cant, but in many cases, the issue is clearcut and well elaborated in the nomination. Which is the case here. Viz: Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do keep in mind that several claims in the nom are outright false, as I have indicated in my first paragraph above. Therefore a delete "per nom" is a perpetuation of falsehoods. Note further that the possibility of not meeting WP:WEB was not part of the nom, and indeed was a point I raised. Lur 15:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the nomination doesn't state fails WP:WEB directly, it instead addresses those aspects of the guideline within WP:WEB that are germane here, so smae thing as I read it. Eusebeus 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to demonstrate that this web site satisfies the WP:WEB criteria, then all that you need to do is cite sources to demonstrate that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent from the web site. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Your minds are made up, as is plain from the fact that not one of you has bothered to read my comment carefully. I don't care to be your dancing monkey and MoFi does not need Wikipedia's grudging acknowledgement. Lur 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is that an admission that the subject has not been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. It sounds like it to me. JChap2007 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whatever. pages about linktraps like this one are spam and should be deleted. non-notable. - Femmina 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepI might wish it weren;t notable, but it is.

It is correct thatdecisions depend upon who chooses to answer, which is a good thing on article talk pages where only the interested contribute, but really stupid for things like this. DGG 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not cite any sources; no hits on Google News; one hit apiece on Books and Scholar, but the book does not even list MonkeyFilter in the index and the article in Scholar is on p2p filesharing, so it is unlikely it discusses MonkeyFilter (a site that does not feature filesharing) much. JChap2007 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and commentary, especially noting User:Lur's overdramatic commentary. Please forgive my low tolerance of dramaqueenery. --Dennisthe2 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interesting that you have a low tolerance for dramaqueenery, but apparently a high tolerance for outright lies being used a justification for deleting an entry. Wikipedia may not be a directory for blogs, but it's going to be awfully stupid for an internet resource not to highlight internet sites which have particular character, history or is of particular interest.
  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.3 (talk • contribs) .
  - Comment - then it might interest you to note that Wikipedia is not for things that are "interesting", because "interesting" is highly subjective where as notable, according to Wikipedia policy, is not. Further, if the AfD is "outright lies", then you need to demonstrate that it is indeed, and/or repair the article, and/or contact an admin. My vote stands as delete. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. Montco 05:10, 3 December 2006 (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.