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. This took a while to look through, and there are a lot of keep requests. However once comments from new, anonymous and recently reactivated user accounts are properly weighted - there is a clear consensus to delete. TigerShark 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thingbox[edit]

Spam. Artw 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB for guidelines. Phr (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards, you are correct that readers can and should resubmit it if it becomes larger and more notable. For that reason, it's fine to delete it now and recreate if and when appropriate. Wikipedia documents topics that are already notable, not those growing towards notability. Phr (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of these kinds of sites are frequently found through wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.223.157 (talk • contribs) .
Would GWO like to provide the evidence that I (for example) have been engaged in trickery on here? For the record, I have not. ddstretch 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that I am not a "Sock Puppet". Do you have any evidence of sock puppetry going on GWO? -- Corky1979 11:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corky1979 (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA and has been editing for 1 week. Ddstretch (talk · contribs) has two edits prior to July 17. -- Phr (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not conclusive proof that I am a sockpuppet or that I have been engaged in trickery, which was what the allegation was, and for which proof was requested. All it means is that I have not made more than a few edits prior to commenting on this entry. The implication that I am therefore likely to be engaged in trickery does not follow. As Pericles of Athens is quoted as stating "Although only a few may initiate a policy, all may comment on it." (quoted at the beginning of the text of Karl Popper's book "The Open Society and Its Enemies"). ddstretch 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr (talk · contribs) Yup, I did create this account when I noticed that the OUTEverywhere entry needed some work, and this is all I have had time to edit so far. I will be edit more soon though :) -- Corky1979 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed WP:WEB, I can see the reasoning behind why Thingbox would probably fail this test. But also, using the same reasoning, I do not see Gaydar or OUTeverywhere as passing the tests, either. It does not particularly bother me eiither way whether Thingbox is retained or not, but I do see there is an issue of fairness and being equitable in adhering to published grounds (WP:WEB). May be when a decision is made as to whether the entry on Thingbox should be retained or not, a similar decision should also be made or initiated about Gaydar and OUTeverywhere? ddstretch 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of an AfD about Gaydar or OUTeverywhere and I haven't looked at those articles. Obviously it's fine to initiate AfD's for them if it looks like they don't meet the guidelines. See WP:AFD for instructions on initiating AfD's. Phr (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that they don't meet the guidelines seems reasonable, so I've listed them for deletion. Artw 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* PHR: you assert that 'many new ... accounts ... showing up to participate here'. This simply isn't true. I'm afraid that both you and "The Stig" have fallen into what Edward de Bono calls the "Must-Be" error. Because you have seen Puppetry before where unfamiliar accounts appear on an Articles for Deletion page, you think you see it here. That is understandable. It is not the case and can be shown not to be the case. To do as GWO has done and libel these people is also understandable, but it is vile and corrosive. That you, PHR, appear to have fallen in with this I can only account for by a moment of inattention ... and it is the vulnerability of the editing process to what amount to unintentional personal attacks such as GWO's that is so distressing.
Here are the approximate number of edits and first appearance of those whom "The Stig" has accused of being sock puppets:
NOMINATION FOR DELETION
16 JULY 2006
AnemoneProjectors
500 edits since 11 June 2006
Allotriophagy
5 edits since 26 October 2006
Coffeelover
140 edits since 6 November 2004
Mosmi
50 edits since 27 January 2005
Jacobgreenbaum
200 edits since 30 July 2002
Scottishmatt
9 edits since 5 December 2004
Corky1979
35 edits since 12 July 2006
ddstretch
100 edits since 3 February 2005
86.27.65.111
1 edit on 5 January 2006
tablet_eraser
10 edits since 19 January 2006
teppic74
20 edits since 12 July 2006
Since NONE of these accounts is new, none can possibly be either a sock- or meat-puppet. Furthermore, if you take a look, as I believe you may now have done in the case of ddstretch, you will see that none is an SPA (though Corky1979 had not yet edited his first article when you mentioned this).
I hope you will take my comment here in a spirit of good faith, since I believe you have simply fallen into an easy trap. The trap was laid more selfishly, I believe, by a libel which was not meant as a personal attack, but I suspect the product of hubris. Please don't be herded by this in future -- it doesn't make you look good. And what's more: it make me henching vex!! (this is not a good thing). I take on board your comment below about aculturation, but I hope you will agree that while my formatting may be rubbish, I have understood what is about here.
82.35.164.244 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. May I note here that I still have made no comment on the article itself. My knowledge of the site is through a fellow-student who mentioned this AfD page to me. I have read WP:WEB and I have a view, but I am not putting forward here an argument in favour or against deletion. Yet, it is important to include in this place the denunciation I have made of the baseless accusations of Puppetry.
Actually I've made approximately 1100 edits since June 11 2006. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon writes[edit]

IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY TO alphachimp, I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING ON HIS TALK PAGE SEEKING ADVICE ON GWO who claims to be "The Stig" on Top Gear's libelous posting above.

I think you have elided away from the point, User:alphachimp, or at least as far as the events are significant to me.

The objector made a direct accusation without supplying any supporting evidence. As I know that several of the contributors to the AfD page are distinct carbon-based humanoids, he has libeled them all. Furthermore, he has brought the discussion to a halt by libelling any subsequent contributor who opposes deletion. I am not, by using a legal term, advising a legal remedy -- that way madness and bankruptcy lie! I am simply pointing out that there is a reason in law why it is wrongful to make false accusations and I would ask you to point me to the appropriate rememdy within Wikipedia for an unsupported accusation against fellow contributors.

A bun-fight on the AfD page is not a satisfactory remedy.

User:GWO must either present evidence to support his claim or retract it. How do I invoke this challenge?

The objector's posting was directly responsible for my NOT putting forward a new argument in favour of retention. What am I to do to prevent being subject to this 'prior restraint' which he has invoked?

FYI - the original posting: 

   * Delete, nn website indulging in shocking sock puppetry. -- GWO

May I also clarify my motivations:

it is not 'offence' or 'indignation' at having been bullied out of an AfD. It is the fact that the actions of a contributor on an AfD page have been highly disruptive to the editing process. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.164.244 (talk • contribs)

Hi, you might read this section of the page about sockpuppet policy to understand what GWO was referring to. Basically, AfD's are supposed to be discussions within the regular Wikipedia editing community; newcomers (especially those who show up specifically for some single discussion) are welcome to participate but their conclusions are traditionally given less weight (or none) when determining consensus. In this instance I think that should also apply to nonactive accounts that suddenly woke up for this discussion. Phr (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what would you say was "nonactivity"? Remember, you probably have to be precise to avoid bringing about even more problems. For example, I made a few edits before, when I first joined, and then was away, abroad (in China) where access was difficult and eventually blocked for many months. In fact, whilst I was away I consciously used some of this time to gather more information which I hoped, and am intending, to use to expand a few entries concerning places in China (Zhangjiajie and Zhangjiajie City to name just two instances.) I think a whole new can of worms could be opened up if this idea of "nonactive" accounts is suddenly applied without prior warning. ddstretch 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikilawyering is not a good strategy. No, I don't need to be precise, there are no set rules, we are allowed to react to situations as they arise, and the closing admin will read over the different comments and then use their discretion and wisdom to do something sensible. The admins are not robots who are constrained to follow formulas; we delegate them the authority to handle these things as judgement calls when necessary, because we trust their judgement.

It looks to me like you made an account, played with it a little, and abandoned it, a very common fate of Wikipedia accounts (something like 3/4 of them have never edited at all). Then someone brought this AfD to the attention of Thingbox members and you came over from there. Please do edit some of the China articles (and anything else that interests you) but until you actually do participate like that (rather than merely intending to), we have to think of you as a non-participant. Also, even if you had been editing regularly, the mere act of coming over because of an external campaign is itself reason to make adjustments (see here); it's just easier to infer what likely happened, given your contrib history. Phr (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is interesting to read the comments made about people perceived to be "newcomers" in the light of the following section: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, in particular, this passage: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary." Some have done this more than others. I do not count user:Phr as being one of them. Thanks for the explanation, Phr, but I can only reiterate that your inference is, in my case, inaccurate. ddstretch 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the reception was a bit unfriendly, and that's why I supplied those links that explained the terminology and logic in ways that were hopefully less upsetting. We should have been more conscientious about welcoming newbies even in difficult circumstances; but I hope you can sympathize at least slightly to the reaction we have (especially since this happens quite often) to being jumped on like this. Imagine a few dozen Wikipedians suddenly showing up at Thingbox without knowing anything about Thingbox's culture, trying to get Thingbox to display some article about Wikipedia for Wikipedia's benefit, without regards to Thingbox's usual habits about that kind of article, and expecting to have the same amount of say in such decisions as regular Thingbox participants who had been there for a while. I think it wouldn't go over much better than this AfD has gone.

I see that we agree now that Thingbox doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines. See also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer (the "review your intentions" paragraph), understand that Wikipedia is in the 20 largest web sites on the whole internet, realize we're constantly bombarded by people trying to sell products or gain notoriety by putting stuff in front of our readers because they know the value of that much advertising, and understand that we know exactly what it is that they want. It's a perpetual battle to stick to our goal of being an encyclopedia and not an advertising service and we very frequently have to tell (e.g.) up-and-coming musicians claiming to be on the verge of "making it" to come back after they've made it, not before. This is pretty similar--if the article gets deleted, I advise waiting a few months and examining the guidelines before trying again (assuming you meet the guidelines by then, which you very well might), and don't organize a campaign, those (as you see) tend to go over badly. I hope that helps you understand the situation a little better. -- Phr (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is not satisfied.
WP:WEB does not apply.
Thingbox, like other social networking "sites" does not merit inclusion because of the notoriety of it's web-only content. It merits an article because of the social activity of human communities bound through on-line communication. Like geographically-bound communities, there is not the same threshold of notability -- Wikipedia would not delete an article about a village because it was not frequently mentioned in the press, or was not utterly unique. Thingbox merits inclusion as one of many LGBT social networking communities in just the same way as Saxmundham merits inclusion as one of a number of Suffolk geographic communities.
It should be sufficient to demonstrate that a sufficiently distinct activity took place, involving a significant number of people over a significant period of time for the activity to merit inclusion. This is not a static website and it is not the content per se which is notable.
What must be supplied, however, is satisfactory references i.e. the article should not be 'autobiography' or 'original research'.
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