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. The concern is reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and none have been presented that satisfy guidelines for inclusion - neither forum posts, passing mentions, Google hit counts nor Wikipedia editors qualify, as Wickethewok and Yomangani have adequately explained. Consequently there is no reason to discount the arguments that came before Bones' posts, and consensus and policy are for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BZPower[edit]

BZPower (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:V. I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses. Googling only brings up a few dozen hits not from the BZPower itself. Was previously nominated but was kept as apparently users back then didn't need to present any sort of logical argument. Anyway, the lack of independent coverage means it fails WP:V and it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB. As is, the entire article is original research. Fails the Alexa test @ ~156k ranking if you're into that sort of thing. Delete for the reasons listed above. Wickethewok 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the "As is, the entire article is original research" claim, see this part of that policy: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about... An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Seems this is being ignored by you--just want to make sure this is brought up. As far as I can see, being a primary source myself, there is only a tiny amount that qualifies as OR, if anything. The basic facts of the site are easily verifiable, are correct, and are provided by a primary source, myself and others. Again, the issue is that more citations are needed, and as shown below, they can be. And let's not lose sight of the main reason the site is notable, as I stated in the last AFD, which concluded it should stay: "But I beleive that every site of note in the Bionicle community deserves reference; we're talking about the fan community of LEGO's most successful line, that helped save the company, and it is also the company that is more in-tune with its online fan community than virtually any other. There is just plain no justification for any arguement that sites like BZP or MoD do not deserve their own encyclopedic reference, unless you want to argue that the LEGO company is not noteworthy. I see nobody arguing that." --Bonesiii 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Wickethewok, you asked for sources 5 days ago. Do you expect things to just fly up within 5 days? Two weeks, perhaps is a fairer time, but you didn't even allow for a week.
Second, you say it fails the WP:WEB critieria. Then explain how BZpower was once linked to on BIONICLE.com, the official BIONICLE website, and has been noted in many online articles and such, yet you say they still fail?
Third, I'd like to comment in this SPA rumor. I am a pretty well respected BS01 staffer, and BZP member. I know most of those who said "yes" to keep it, and they were not SPA's by any means. ~U— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.11.63 (talk • contribs)
  • Short on time so hope I'm close to following procedures for commenting here, lol--my comments on this are summed up here: [[1]]. The opening comment on this page states "I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses." -- I've been watching the talk page over the past month and this request came only last week. Not sure how wikipedia's policies define "a while" but that doesn't fit my definition. ;) (All due respect.) And just a summary reading of these policies that BZP supposedly doesn't fit shows that yes, it does--the evidence just isn't cited yet (how could it be within a mere week?). Got real life to spend time on now, so must go... For starters though, BZP is often mentioned on other websites, and has been mentioned in print journals such as the AFOL magazine (adult fan of LEGO), so those citations shouldn't be that hard to find for anyone who has time to search... And of course, it has been very relevant to the LEGO company, so at least by my definition of "relevant" no sound arguement can be made that it isn't (I thought this was cleared up last time, lol). Keep --Bonesiii 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 day waiting period with 5 days for AFD. If the information can't be verified in 10 days, something ain't right. And really, its not like there hasn't been warning - I mean, the article has been nominated for AFD 3 times already apparently since its creation 1.5 years ago. I could've even just nominated the article with no warning, but I figured that giving people twice the amount of time that is required by deletion process would be nice. If someone comes up with some sources, like, a month from now, the article can be reinstated, albeit with the removal of all the OR. Wickethewok 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[D]eletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)."
Assuming there's any merit to this claim, here's some evidence real quick (that can be added to the article) as per the guidelines claimed not to fit the article:
1) Google search: 77,900 hits. 18000 or so without the BZP domain name; admiddetedly a few of those are just the bzcommunity old domain name, but just browse the list yourself; that's a minority: http://www.google.com/search?q=BZPower+-site:www.bzpower.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N And as mentioned before; fifth hit on Google search for Bionicle, topped only by Bionicle.com, Scholastic's Bionicle page, and of course the wikipedia entry for Bionicle: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Bionicle
2) Coverage on other websites not affiliated with BZP? BZP is the most-covered Bionicle fansite there is. A few examples: http://forums.maskofdestiny.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=10 http://www.mnonlinev3.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1181&st=240 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0211/S00055.htm http://www.lugnet.com/cool/
3) Also, as far as "previous warning" the past AFD nominations are hardly surprising--BZP has many enemies (see the Criticism section of the article), and from my experience, that's what motivated those proposals, not wikipedia policy. By the way, wiki policy did come up, and according to the first AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BZPower BZP does meet Alexa standards. No idea why that is now taken the opposite way, but something seems inconsistent here?
4) The vanity accusation is certainly a fair concern, and I of course am a staff member there, so you'd be correct to be cautious about what I say. However, that also means I know what I'm talking about, and as I stated, the policies being linked to appear to qualify BZPower for inclusion. And as I said in the last AFD, we don't need wikipedia advertising. ;) We became the most popular Bionicle forum long before wikipedia ever had an article on us (and we did not originate this article, as stated in the first AFD). And finally, if I was interested in having an article for advertisement's sake, why exactly would I be leading efforts to include a fair criticism section?
5) It appears that there's a tendency here to discount anything an expert on a subject knows--this is a little disturbing, and I hope that will not be the case with my logic; the guideline at the top of this page makes the claim that it's the logic that the decision is based on, not a head count. And for the record, I may be a staff member now but I had no idea BZP existed for 2 years after it was founded, so I would consider myself to be partly an independant source (and if you want actual independent sources, see the google search :)). This "original research" guideline appears to be questionable, as stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28web%29#Expand_The_Criteria.21.21 , though the basic idea makes sense to me. But the facts listed on this article are well-known and often mentioned on sites outside of BZP, such as Mask of Destiny, Mata Nui Online (again, see the google search); they are hardly "original" research. They just need cited better, admittedly.
7) Also note; much of the notability claims made were stated by Greg Farshtey, the author of the Bionicle books, though he didn't print the statements, lol. He is not affiliated with BZPower, but LEGO company instead; many of the citations in the article already cite his statements, so this would count as well as independant sources, as I understand it, and is easily verified simply by asking him (member name=GregF at BZP, he's also on Mask of Destiny with his own forum division). It appears possible these citations are being discounted merely because they are posts on BZPower, which to me would be invalid since they were not posted by BZPower staff but a LEGO employee; and not just any but the author of the books, the comics, lead member of the Bionicle story team, etc. Also probably worth noting that two BZPower members had the published Bionicle Encyclopedia (see Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Bionicle-Encyclopedia-Stickers-Greg-Farshtey/dp/0439745616) dedicated to them for their help in providing the content of that book (Crystal Matrix, founder of Biosector01 reference and my fellow BZP Reference Master, and Pekel, current owner of half of BS01 (note that that site has ongoing issues with a technical glitch that is still being resolved but was online at the time the encyclopedia was being written; details here: http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showforum=45), one of the BZP reference keepers and forum assistants, and a contest I ran on BZP, incidentally, decided a small part of the content to that book ( http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=156654 ). You can see the discussions ongoing currently for the second edition of that book on BZPower here: http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=229663
8) So again, my conclusion: logically I see no need to delete the article prematurely. The "Trivial coverage" and "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" criteria can be met under WP:WEB, as can the WP:V verifiability requirement (and part of that has already been met). If citations can't be provided later, say in a month, that action would make sense; either way, I am willing to take the time later to make sure a re-added article has appropriate citations. It just wouldn't be very helpful to delete the archives of the current article. ;) Heck, just in this comment alone I've got tons of citations; will try to find time to add them this weekend to the article. --Bonesiii 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I humbly request an explanation of why ten days currently is plenty of time? Besides the beginnings of fulfilling that request cited above, I'd point out to you that since the people the request was directed at are currently very busy with other things, this would be an "not always" instance. ;) This AFD was proposed during that time; that is why a mere five days wasn't sufficient. Your comment seems rather subjective... --Bonesiii 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fan sites and advertisements are not reliable sources of information. Wickethewok 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lugnet one is, according to the policy you yourself linked to: "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria... The content is 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." [Bolded emphasis mine.] Also note: "The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the site... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books..." See #7 of facts listed above {bolded emphasis again mine]. The advertisement in the Brickjournal issue was only part of the citation given, remember--two articles were also submitted, as well as other references. --Bonesiii 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that BZPower is not the subject of the the LUGNET article at all. Its only mentioned a few times by the author, who also happens to the webmaster of the site in question. Wickethewok 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you check out page 82 of the the issue ;). How can you read that and say BZP is "not the subject... at all"? Also, how does he "just happen" to be the webmaster of the site? You really think that Binky would be considered for the job of webmaster for LEGO.com if he was just another AFOL on Lugnet, not an accomplished admin of BZP? That is called being a subject. Not the main subject, sure, but the term "main" does not appear in the guidelines. In fact, your comment actually backs me up even further if you look at the exception, trivial mention. Obviously, Bink's mention of BZP was not trivia. I really don't see why you are still arguing here--the policy says that if any one of the requirements is met, the article qualifies. So BZP does, does it not?
Again, no disrespect, but I'm not seeing any recognition made of the large amount of evidence given above, just a shaky arguement made against one of the many points... You wanted a logical arguement--well, I'm a logician, so doing my best to provide that--hopefully you can see the logic here. :) --Bonesiii 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I did notice that was the only line that was marked--and that's the one line in the article that appears innaccurate, actually. I didn't add that, not sure who did, but the correct statement, as far as I know, is that Greg is a member of both BZP and MoD, no other fansites. If that one line is what this debate is really about, then there really isn't a problem here--it can easily be corrected. --Bonesiii 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just cleared up the mess over the lack of citation on GregF's accounts elsewhere. He has joined Mask of Destiny and MNOnlinev3. I have linked to both of his accounts; they are genuine. I do not see why this article should be deleted because of a lack of that citation; it has been cited now. 69.15.24.122 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Rockymountains[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.
Category