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. --Coredesat 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informedconsent.co.uk[edit]

Informedconsent.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable. The website has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works. The references are either blogs or trivial. This is an example of a trivial mentioning of the website, but it's used in the article to prove the website's notability:

Tanos, operator of Informed Consent, a UK-based BDSM information and discussion website, says: 'I think in many cases you can tell. My view is that a 24/7 relationship should be nurturing and encourage the submissive (and the dominant for that matter) to grow.'

What we need is non-trivial articles about the site itself, which we obviously don't have. bogdan 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Jkelly 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources using this web site as an example of a site of its kind suggest that it is an important example. Yes, they don't say a lot about the site, but there's not really a lot to say. The fact is, however, it is an important site within the subculture it represents, and therefore should be included. JulesH 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB Orderinchaos 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of the sources are trivial mentions. All but one source is not-notable. The source that is notable (Channel4) is simply a directory entry, which WP:WEB explicitly excludes. Below is the total extent:

• "Tanos, operator of Informed Consent, a UK-based BDSM information and discussion website, says: 'I think in many cases you can tellƒ My view is that a 24/7 relationship should be nurturing and encourage the submissive (and the dominant for that matter) to grow.'"[1]
• "I don't make as many posts to Informed Consent as I used to, and I occasionally post to other general BDSM websites like Collarme.com and Bondage.com."[2]
• "www.informedconsent.co.uk - A site for those interested in consensual Bondage & Discipline, Dominance Submission, S/M and Fetish in the UK. There is no visual or written porn on the site." [3]

• - Francis Tyers · 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Red Pepper (magazine) is a notable left-wing political magazine. OutNorthwest is a popular regional magazine for the LGBT community in its region. Just because you've never heard of a source doesn't make it unimportant. Yes, there isn't much coverage, but I challenge you to find any coverage that is more in-depth than any of these (the OutNorthwest article is the most in-depth, containing (IIRC) an entire paragraph on the subject) in a reliable source on a BDSM-related web site. I contend that this level of coverage is what one would expect of such an entity, therefore this site is a leader in its field, hence notable. I would also point out that the Channel4 content is not merely a directory entry; if it were a directory they would surely have more than two sites on the particular topic. I'd contend that the page is intended to form a guide to recommended resources (i.e. recommending only the best) rather than a directory (i.e. aiming to include everything that's relevant). The reason WP:WEB excludes directories is because of this lack of selectivity. The Channel4 page shows evidence of selectivity in its creation. JulesH 08:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A trivial mention in a notable publication is not a non-trivial mention in a notable publication. If RP or C4 did an article or show on informedconsent.co.uk, then you'd have a case, but a couple of sentences is pretty much nothing. I've got three sentences on myself in The Grauniad, does that mean I'm notable enough to get an article? Hell no. - Francis Tyers · 09:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Francis Tyers removed information from the article regarding its notability. The only reason I can think of for doing this is to make it more likely for it to be deleted. I'm trying to assume good faith, but this does not look like a good-faith action to me. JulesH 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what its worth, User:Francis Tyers removed two pieces of information: one was the weasel word "leading" (wholly unnecessary if the article can provide objective evidence from WP:RS as to why this is a "leading" website), and the other was the statement It was originally created by a man who identifies himself as Tanos, although he now contributes little to the site, letting it be run primarily by other users.. Neither of these are relevant, per se, to the judgment of notability, and regardless both statements are in the current version of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say the word "leading" is very relevant to the sites notability, and it is sourced from two of the items in the references section. I see no justification for removing it here. JulesH 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and my comments about this article in Wipipedia's thrid AFD nomination. This article seems to have been created solely to save Wipipedia. — Pious7 10:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WEB with only trivial mentions in what appear to be fringe publications. Sandstein 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a web site for a fringe community. You expect it to be discussed in The Times? JulesH 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, if said before, if it's not notable it then doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Pious7 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence from multiple, nontrivial reliable sources that site meets WP:WEB. As for the keep recommender's assertion they don't say a lot about the site, but there's not really a lot to say... well, then the article does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a primary or secondary source of information, it is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. I can understand the assertion that the article was created solely as a last-ditch effort to save Wipipedia; that ship has sailed, so without any evidence as to notability, this one should join as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, source mentions are trivial. No indication that the site is notable or that enough source material exists for a comprehensive article based on reliable sourcing. Seraphimbladeflying 16:19, 18 May 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.