Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid play

: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. comments against more convincing that comments for keeping MBisanz talk 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Mermaid play]]=

:{{la|Mermaid play}} ([{{fullurl:Mermaid play|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid play}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable and a dictionary definition. Article is a copy of the Wipipedia entry on the subject [http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Mermaid_play], which is user-edited and unreferenced. No evidence to support that this term is in wide use or that the activity is particularly significant. It is also in violation of the GFDL as the contribution history of the Wipipedia article is not included. WJBscribe (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Informed Consent (website) is a notable web site. The article there is stated to be copied from Wipipedia. However, Informed Consent is not a Wipipedia mirror. Before the article was added, it would have had an expert peer review by the editors of Informed Consent. That site does indeed acknowledge Wipipedia. If it is important to link to the Wipipedia history directly, this is easily done.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • :I disagree with you about the notability of the website. What evidence is there that it's content is peer reviewed? WJBscribe (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will this ever be more then a dictionary definition? The fact that it is copied from one leads me to say no at this time. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. IC's site is copied from Wipipedia (or vice versa), and is in any event user-contributed. From IC's "BDSM Dictionary" frontpage: "People with IC profiles can add or edit entries themselves, and help to build up the Dictionary as a comprehensive guide to BDSM. Please read the Dictionary help page for guidelines about the style and content of entries. The Dictionary web board can be used to discuss the wording of entries and the general direction of improvements to the Dictionary." (Emphasis mine.) No part of that states or implies that there's anything more than a user editing process, like any wiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.