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. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vevmo[edit]

Some kind of media website. The only thing approaching a mainstream reference in this article is a blog entry on the USA Today website, which refers to "a Vevmo discussion board participant named Katiedid". All the other references seem to be blogs, too, only even more obscure. Jenny 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Website notable, especially because of its celebrity members. Well know within The Real World genre/community. Used in a variety of Wikipedia articles as a source because of its reputation for accuracy.^[1]^[2]^[3] User:Zredsox 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be citing Wikipedia articles as sources. --Jenny 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, just pointing out that Wikipedia also uses Vevmo as a source because of its significance in that particular genre.Zredsox (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That error will be remedied shortly. --Jenny 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me? This is why many new users to wikipedia don't stay very long. I kindly pointed out something as part of this particular discussion and was offered a heady slight in return.Zredsox (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Jenny just meant that the fact that Wikipedia uses this message board as a source in some articles is actually in contravention of policy, and thus shouldn't be used as evidence of the board's notability. Powers ^T 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It may not fully lend credence to the boards notability, but is still a valid source in context of those articles: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic - which Vevmo.com is within the community. Also, Vevmo is used as a point of fact (rather then just a source) being they broke the cast of The Real World: Hollywood 4 months before it was announced along with other major plot points that were later confirmed by MTV verbatim (which is significant in its own right.) It goes to verifiability, and a history of factual reporting.Zredsox (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, the policy is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (See WP:SPS; the boldface is copied from the policy page) You have left out the italicized part. Even if Vevmo is an "established expert", can you cite where Vevmo's work has been "published by reliable third-party publications"? --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but we have a policy on this. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Jenny 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where are the third-party sources that actually discuss "Vevmo", it's founding, its purpose, its current readership, its larger cultural context, and its ongoing cultural relevance? As far as I can tell, the listed sources are either first-party or nothing more than passing references to the web site. That doesn't satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. Powers ^T 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this isn't the place for this discussion, but I'd say maybe 5-10 sites in the Internet forum category meet the criterion you have proposed. Zredsox (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be, but it's not really relevant to this article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Powers ^T 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is in that the criteria stated goes beyond what is common sense policy to keep an article. You can't say, "This is the criteria - Only applicable to this article." You either have to set a standard and abide by it, or change the standard to meet the reality - which is that there are hundreds of forums in that category and the majority are less notable then Vevmo. No matter. I believe the site is of significance. I'll leave it at that. BTW: I kindly ask that readers of this discussion not go off and vandalize all the articles that I noted here until a verdict has been reached here. Thanks.Zredsox (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How does it go beyond "common sense"? Those are basic components of a comprehensive encyclopedia article, and there are no secondary sources that even begin to address them. Obviously, an article doesn't need all of that information to be kept, but simply citing examples of use is not sufficient to determine notability under our guidelines; we need actual articles written about the web site that include at least some of the information I mentioned above. Powers ^T 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that the article needs to be improved. Maybe it should be templated as such to garner more applicable sourcing, rather than just deleted. This article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, and I don't see the need to rush when a concerted effort is being made to enhance the content of the article in question.Zredsox (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 64.89.250.90 (talk · contribs) appears to be Zredsox (talk · contribs) logged out; there is a discussion between me and the IP user at Talk:Real World/Road Rules Challenge and a discussion between me and Zredsox at Talk:Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) where Zredsox refers to the "discussion we were having on the Real World/Road Rules Challenge Talk Page" (emphasis mine). --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note It would seem Latish redone is wikistalking me at this point because of personal reasons (is there anything I can do?) Everywhere I go, he/she shows up. BTW: I have a cookie issue with Wikipedia and FF3. I have signed the post in question.Zredsox (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from making personal attacks at other contributors. See WP:NPA. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am making it clear to the administrators ever since I disagreed with you about an article, you have been following me and that your commentary is clearly a Conflict of Interest because it is your goal to make a point.Zredsox (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no conflict of interest as I am clearly not affiliated with Vevmo, Real World/Road Rules Challenge, or the subject of any article that I have edited. I am not here to make a point, simply to improve the articles that I work on so that they adhere to Wikipedia policy. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have "Declared an interest" in making sure Vevmo is not used as a source in another article, which by default means you have a Conflict.Zredsox (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Where have I "Declared an interest" in making sure that Vevmo is not cited as a source? All I have done is to make sure the article meets verifiability policy. A web forum like Vevmo is clearly not an acceptable source according to the policy. Therefore there is no conflict of interest here. The page "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest" states "Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I have not forgone advancing the aims of Wikipedia, so I am clearly not in a conflict of interest. Note that even if you consider what I'm doing to be a "conflict of interest" (and it is not, you just need to read and understand that page), WP:V is a core content policy of Wikipedia along with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and therefore with regard to article content those three policies take precedence over all others. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You can post in circles on this all day, but I know that you are here because this is my article and you have a vested interest in seeing it deleted. The one thing I have learned on Wikipedia in my short time spent on the site as an editor is that if you ruffle the feathers of another editor, they will stop at nothing to make sure your articles are all deleted or substantially changed. In the end I know I am going to "lose" this conversation, as it is impossible to argue (even correctly) when you are up against more experienced users on Wikipedia that basically toss the book at your article. This is a well documented fact. Unlike in the court of law where a defense attorney would be provided, that luxury is not afforded here and the establishment always takes the day with zeal. New editors trying hard to make quality articles are obviously not welcome here. While people should be helping me to make the article better and finding more reliable sources, instead they are using everything within their grasp to defeat the article, almost like it is a contest. Maybe its deletion can be remembered as a victory of some sorts. I am not sure. No matter, We know were you stand. We know where Jenny stands. We know were I stand. Lets just move to the sentencing phase....Zredsox (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are posting in circles. Established Wikipedia contributors have simply asked the other contributors that would like to keep this article to improve it so that it meets the verifiability policy. No reliable sources for an article about X = no article about X. It's that simple. If you can't understand my explanations of Wikipedia content policy then you need to seek help from other Wikipedia contributors; violations of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. are not acceptable despite your apparent lack of understanding of the policies. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This type of aggressive, privileged, inhospitable response is exactly what I was referring to.Zredsox (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Advising Wikipedia contributors on the core content policies of Wikipedia articles is not "aggressive, privileged, inhospitable". Also, please refrain from making personal attacks at other contributors. See WP:NPA. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please refrain from accusing people of making personal attacks. See WP:NPA.Zredsox (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In case you didn't know, "aggressive, privileged, inhospitable" is a comment directed at me rather than my contributions. That clearly constitutes a personal attack according to WP:NPA. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It was not meant as a personal attack, but rather a clear account of the tenor of your responses thus far as you chase me around Wikipedia and comment on absolutely everything that I say from talk, to discussion, to AFD to article pages. Zredsox (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An opinion cannot possibly be a "clear account". Please stick to objective discussion substantiated by actual arguments on these discussion pages. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop stalking me. Please.Zredsox (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What I have been doing is not considered stalking according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Take it to your talk pages, gents; this isn't the place to hash out prior conflicts. You've both made your view well known; it's up to the closing admin to decide the merits. Powers ^T 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am done.Zredsox (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It sure doesn't look like you are, given the number of above comments posted after this one. Please stop; this is not the place for a two-person argument. Powers ^T 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use vevmo to keep track of our clients on reality shows that are taping when those clients are out of contact with us. Vevmo's sources have thus far proven to be spot-on. We are aware that much of the sourcing comes directly from the production companies who see that site as a independent method of reaching potential future viewers (alternative advertising). What I find amusingly odd and almost laughable is that the argument for deletion here is largely one that would have sunk Wikipedia in its infancy. We are talking about contemporary American youth culture here. It is one, like Wipipedia, which thrives on being current and cutting-edge -- just like vevmo is doing. Dave Garner, Managing Director, Vision 1 Media Group. Ddgarner(talk)15:19, 5 July 2008 — Ddgarner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "would have sunk Wikipedia". Do you mean sunk the encyclopedia itself? If so, it's irrelevant because the issue is the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not for the existence of the web site. If you mean sunk the article about Wikipedia, then yes, when the site first began it was clearly not notable, prima facie. You'll note that the site was launched in January 2001 but the article on Wikipedia didn't exist until December 2001, and that our inclusion criteria were likewise in their infancies. Powers ^T 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sinking or not Sinking, I think that it can be extrapolated from the comment that Vevmo is notable from the perspective of a media consulting group^[4] in the industry. Another key point to notability (much like Television without Pity) is the celebrity members^[5]^[6] who frequent and add expertly devised content. Sometimes it is not who is saying what about a site, but rather who is saying what on a site - that makes it noteworthy.Zredsox (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit that I don't know for certain if it satisfies criteria for notability in terms of third-party sources that discuss it, but as the editor and administrator who is pretty much writing and maintaining the quality of the Real World-related articles in order to keep out unsourced POV cruft and vandalism, including the last season, the current season, and the upcoming season, I would point out that while I at first challenged this site, as I did not know if it was reliable, I have found that it indeed is. I relied on this page for info on the cast for The Real World: Hollywood, which included names, headshots and occupations, before mtv.com had posted any info on that cast, and almost everything about the entire cast turned out to be correct, right down to the identity of the two cast members who left the series close to the end of it, and the two new ones that replaced them. To be fair, the hometowns of six of the nine cast members is different from the ones now given by mtv.com. I don't know if this helps, but thought I'd point it out. Nightscream (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note on the hometowns: Vevmo lists where cast members were living previous to their time on the show. MTV lists where they are from "originally" although that definition is somewhat subjective being that is not saying where they were born, but rather where they spent a given amount of time while a certain age.Zredsox (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MTV is a reliable source on this program. Vevmo, whatever it might be, is not. It's just this website, as far as I can tell. --Jenny 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think what you might be missing here is that MTV did not "spoil" its own cast or plot points so it could not be used as a source to that effect. It was Vevmo that did that (accurately) and that is what was stated in the article. BMP takes extreme steps to guard the secrecy of its flagship series' storyline and when it is reported accurately previous to air, no matter the messenger, it is noteworthy. In the case of The Real World: Hollywood that source was Vevmo.Zredsox (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can't verify the Vevmo information. Statements that specific information is accurate don't help us to determine whether it is a reliable source. The identity of the messenger does matter. That is our policy. --Jenny 04:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "We can't verify the Vevmo information." - clearly that is the opinion you personally hold. I thought we were talking about notability anyways? My previous statement was to that affect. In any event, it doesn't seem to be good policy to rush to delete an article, especially when there are contributers in the process of working to make the article better. I am not fully apprised of all Wikipedia policies, but from what I have read it would seem the general rule of thumb is not to delete until all other options are exhausted (including requesting more sources.) Being the article is barely a day old, I don't think we have reached that point yet. Zredsox (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually "We can't verify the Vevmo information" is a testable statement which could be refuted by describing which reliable source we could use to verify the information. Please do so. --Jenny 06:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you feel that we can not currently verify, then should we not tag the page with the verify template? Is that not the reason for such a template? The article is hot off the press and this statement in the deletion policy: "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" does not seem to have been strenuously met. I am very confused as to the need for immediacy. There is nothing in the article that would even border on malicious, intent or otherwise. I can personally say as the article creator that I will continue to improve the article in the coming weeks, including finding more reliable sources. I can already see in the history others jumping in and making copyedits in an attempt to enhance the article. Rome was not build in a day.Zredsox (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyedits do not address the lack of reliable sources. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody said that did. However, I was illustrating that some people are trying to make the article better. I am confused as to the almost fanatical need to rush this through to deletion when the article is clearly new and being worked on. That is all I was saying.Zredsox (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources about the website. Passing mentions don't add up to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As written, article does not assert importance over any other of the countless entertainment websites. A mention in USAToday taken from a blog does not suffice as significant enough coverage to pass WP:WEB. GlassCobra 22:01, 8 July 2008 (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.