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 nominator's argument that this is not covered in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" was not addressed, let alone refuted. It is apparently true based on Google news, books, and scholar searches. WP:IAR seems irrelevant here as retaining an unsourced article is not improving Wikipedia, which is the only time that we ignore rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bash.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bash.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Bash.org does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please read those notability guidelines. Just because a website is moderately popular does not mean it meets those guidelines. This article should be deleted.

1. Bash.org has not been mentioned in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

2. Bash.org has been mentioned in websites, but only in two forms: a. "Trivial coverage, such as... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." b. Unreliable, obscure websites that focus on an obscure period in which a few moderators argued with the administrators. Reliability is a key criterion for Wikipedia sources. Both of these types of sources are unacceptable according to the notability guidelines. Since there is no reliable, non-trivial source that has covered bash.org, this article should be deleted.

3. Finally, Bash is not sufficiently popular to justify overlooking the rules. According to Alexa, it's not even in the top 10,000 most popular sites. Slashdot, by contrast, is the 765th most popular. I think if Bash were in the top 1000 or even possibly the top 5000, it might be justifiable to ignore notability rules. Bash just isn't popular enough.

I think Bash.org is a fine site, and I've enjoyed it for a long time, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

PubliusPresent 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: You don't need to say that three times for it to sink in. Bash is smaller than Slashdot. We got it. However, many of us think we should just ignore the rules because we think Wikipedia will be better off with a Bash.org article. This is why the deletion process is not automated. --Explodicle 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference to a 2004 Vote for Deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org) to this AfD. I can't find the second discussion, but this one was closed as a Keep. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - The main thrust of your argument was that it is not notable (you used the words "mildly obscure"). Only now, after I have (intentionally) given you the WP:RS argument (gift wrapped!) have you moved in that direction. Beyond that, why are you adding a second delete !vote to this discussion? Finally, why are you now piling on WP:COI, a guideline which you haven't even mentioned until I disclosed it (twice)? Are there specific allegations of serious COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, etc.)? /Blaxthos 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted once for delete. What are you talking about? Reliable sources and notability are inextricably wrapped, and both are part of the original articles; if there are no reliable, non-trivial sources about a subject, a subject is not notable. Considering the ease with which you link Wikipedia policies, I'm sure you know that. Are you deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article, which you have a vested interest in keeping? PubliusPresent 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up - I am trying to insure that things are accurately represented. I clearly notified everyone that I am the owner of the site (twice), and clearly stated that I recognize the cognitive dissonance which has thus far ameleorated the WP:RS/WP:N concerns. I would also note that I was the one who brought up the WP:COI and the WP:RS problems -- your nomination and additional comments focused on WP:N. What is of great concern to me (and to other editors who have commented on such here) is the vehemence with which you are prosecuting this deletion, oft repeating your points ad infinitum, and slipped in a second delete vote after your nomination. Others have noted that your shepharding of the AfD smells of bad faith; I have treated it in good faith (and handed you additional ammunition, so to speak) because I want the AfD to be both fair and wholly encompassing the issues surrounding the article. You, on the other hand, have now implicitly and explicitly stated that my COI has significance. I ask again three questions: (1) Are there specific allegations of COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM)? (2) Why did you try to slide in a second !vote? (3) Why are you now accusing me of "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article", especially given the fact that I was the editor who brought up both WP:RS and WP:COI? Thanks. /Blaxthos 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-follow up On points 2 and 3: your disingenuous argument is that I voted twice! What an absurd claim. I tried to make a second paragraph in a comment and the formatting was messed up as a result, so I edited it to make it all one paragraph. This is the second time you've linked to that edit and called it a "second vote." Now that is, I think, evidence of bad faith on your part. Your primary evidence for bad faith on my part is that I disagree with you. As I've said several times now, the original research, the lack of reliable sources, and the lack of notability--it's all wrapped into one problem, which is this. An owner of Bash.org (Blaxthos, you) created most of the article's content (original research), and you have no reliable sources to back up what you say. The content is, as such, unverifiable. Should the article be deleted because of COI? No, because I don't think that's a major problem with the article. The article should be deleted due to the lack of reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and lack of notability. Finally, about repeating myself--actually, when I thought people raised legitimate objections, I edited my original articles for deletion and even some of my previous responses to address those objections. PubliusPresent 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you all but ignored the questions I presented, I no longer feel this thread is worth continuing. The diffs above clearly show a second delete, and simple checking of timestamps (or diffs) should show that I was the one who brought up both WP:COI and WP:RS problems, and should assauge any worries you may have that I'm "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article" -- if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't have handed you both WP:RS and WP:COI on a sliver platter. Best of luck. /Blaxthos 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you stand by your claim that I voted twice. I didn't realize that a line break would put my two paragraphs in two different places. I wrote "delete" once and had one signature. I voted once. Period. You're embarrassing yourself. PubliusPresent 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, your first !vote was the nomination. Your second !vote, more than ten hours after your nomination, was your addition of a delete comment (after eleven editors had commented on the nomination) as if you were not the nominator. I would counter that an editor who makes more edits to his first AfD than he has for the rest of the project combined, changes rationales, accuses other editors of bad faith when he is handed additional rationale for deletion, and seems to not understand our norms and mores embarasses himself more than I have. Hopes this clears up your confusion. (I'm really done now... just wanted to make sure you understood that it has nothing to do with a line break). /Blaxthos 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, this is not a voting process. Votes don't get tallied, so it makes no difference, anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I haven't accused anyone of bad faith except you. In retrospect, I should not have argued that Bash was non-notable (even though it is non-notable) because it sounds offensive, particularly, I'm sure, to one of its managers. What I should have referenced is the reliable sources policy, which probably would not have ruffled your feathers so much. For that I apologize. I've never changed rationales, and only edited my original nominating articles for clarity. If I've referenced several different Wikipedia policies, it's because I believe the bash.org article violates them. PubliusPresent 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Bad argument. Have you ever seen mainstream media coverage of Goatse.cx I sure hope not! It's an internet site with a specific audience. The pure traffic to this AfD by people who know bash.org should support WP:N. I'll also point out that it's easier to destroy than it is to fix so AfDing this just because you don't know how to fix it is the wrong way to use AfD. I'm also willing to bet if this actually gets deleted it will be recreated in an even worse form so the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't in this case. Hansonc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is recreated, I'll tag it for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. In fact, I'll watchlist this right now so I can prevent this from happening. If it gets too persistent, an admin will happily salt it. Don't argue to keep it just because something worse might happen. The admins can deal with it. hbdragon88 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of that is a bit premature, isn't it? We haven't even gotten through 48 hours of the AfD, with keep outnumbering delete by four (by my count, as of 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)). /Blaxthos 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOLOLOL We don't vote, we discuss. If there were ten delete arguments but the keep argument offered a real great reason why the article should be kept, it would be kept. Likewise, if there were ten keep arguments but the delete argument was better than all the keeps, it would be deleted. Anyway, it just seemed that the user was basing his comment on what would happen if it was deleted, and I was just saying, trust me, it won't be a huge problem. hbdragon88 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if there were a whole bunch of keeps and the delete argument was "better" in the eyes of the admin, the article would still be kept. A consensus must be formed in order for action to be taken. Administrators are more like janitors than judges; they just enact what we've already agreed upon. --Explodicle 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's where policies such as WP:SNOW come in. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but there are several good arguments both ways. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually... in the Goatse.cx article, I see references at Snopes.com, Time magazine, the BBC, and CNN. I didn't say just "mainstream media" either. Any reliable source, per Wikipedia policy, will do. PubliusPresent 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's rationale focused on the Notability issue, which is why I think it's gotten so much discussion here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 2 November 2007 (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.
More