Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exbii

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 November 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Courcelles 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exbii

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely dissuaded myself from nominating for speedy A7 as I don't yet have enough experience in that area. Self-referenced, no signs of notability from a search. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG Mechanical digger (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete: A7~~Delete. Article has no claim of ~~importance~~notability from WP:RS per WP:WEB... all it says is that it's a message board and that it exists. The rest is unencyclopedic fluff. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe a popular desi entertainment board would be sufficient? Mechanical digger (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but A7 also states that claim of importance must be credibly substantiated. The content of this article does nothing to lend credibility to that statement. Of course, erring on the side of caution is perfectly fine. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Live and learn, etc. Mechanical digger (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've actually switched my !vote to a regular delete, given that a high Alexa rank in India could be considered a claim of importance, albeit a very weak one. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious.Doesn't this suit to exist as there is one big category of internet forums exists in Wikipedia.There are more than 200 pages on that category.I think by re-writing the page,it can be preserved.Illegal.person (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'd note that this article has been subject to a high degree of vandalism in recent days; I somehow ended up with it attaching itself to my watchlist after reverting one spate, yet I simultaneously somehow missed the next spate until just now. Accordingly, I've locked the page from anonymous and new user edits. That said, I'm not seeing a serious or properly sourced claim of notability here, so delete — but watch for continued vandalism in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the author of the eXBii page.

Since its inception, the eXBii page has had two notable references in Bigboards and Alexa. The rankings in big-boards and the traffic statistics shown at Alexa clearly substantiate the claim that it is a very popular desi entertainment board. I started the article, only after reading up on wikipedia's notability guidelines. I think Alexa and Bigboards are most definitely regarded to be notable in that regard? Please feel free to correct if i am wrong here.

Also, with regard to the article projecting a biased view i would appreciate it if someone could take the trouble to point out any statements that might suggest a possible bias. While i have done my best to keep it unbiased, it is quite possible that there might have been an oversight in this regard.

Siddhesh (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The article shows the website is in the Alexa top 100 for India [1]. It seems it's notable, although I can't point to any third party publications. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Magog and Siddhesh, where on WP:WEB is it stated that a ranking on Alexa or Bigboards suggest notability? Mechanical digger (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It states that the articles must conform to reliable sources. Alexa is the most notable source of information for all web forums and a subsidiary of amazon.com as well. The wiki page on alexa pretty much confirms what i just said about it.Siddhesh (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles must indeed conform to reliable sources, but on what basis is Exbii notable? Your answer above refers to Alexa as a notable source, but I am asking about Exbii as a notable subject. Mechanical digger (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like stated earlier by Magog, Alexa ranks Exbii at #76 in its India specific rankings, which in itself is notable. Furthermore, it ranks high in most Asian countries as indicated by their country-wise stat. Also, a global wide ranking of 706 is very notable for a desi entertainment forum thus conforming to the stated lines regarding its popularity. Siddhesh (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:ORG, WP:GNG and WP:WEB does an Alexa ranking qualify an article as notable for inclusion? Please quote the relevant part. Mechanical digger (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: let's not beat around the bush anymore and simply state it: without other sourcing, an Alexa ranking by itself is generally not accepted as a prima facie indicator of notability. See WP:ALEXA. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday's a school day, didn't realise that existed! Mechanical digger (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this logic, wouldn't articles such as Fictionmania and literotica been deleted long ago? The Exbii article seems to have references similar to those. Raj (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is that there are no WP:RS that take an interest in Exbii that I (and so far any other editor) can find. The other two have a mustering of sources that I found with a google, so the cross hairs are off them! Mechanical digger (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these kind of site's doesn't appear on public news papers or magazine in India,as it contains an adult section.Porn is still a taboo in India.This one is similar to the recent famous censored site (which has a wiki article).Savitha_bhabhi. This may appear on news and magazine references once Govt initiate some ban. :).So,even if this is one of the top visited site in India,there won't be much references available online. 59.92.223.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is actually a valid point, and skews the criteria for notability a lot, to the extent we might actually favor ignoring the guideline. I say ~~keep~~ (amended, see below). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would think there would be some sort of coverage somewhere, nonetheless. Given that pornography is a taboo topic in India, one would think that there would be a source (perhaps not necessarily from an India-based media outlet) that discusses the notion that a pornographic site has such popularity in the country. Indeed, the Savita Bhabhi article has such sources, including prominent and readily available discussion in Indian media, so the assertion that articles on possibly taboo Indian topics suffer from FUTON bias or non-reporting by WP:RS is a weak one. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that site is all about breaking taboos (which itself isn't taboo to discuss) and freedom of expression (which the foreign western press loves). This on the other hand, is just a site with a focus on smut. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my keep is contingent: keep if and only if reliable sources can be used on the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my !vote at some AfDs, but I find it easier to summarise as Delete until WP:RS are actually shown to exist... ;-) Mechanical digger (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also referrring to the Savitha Bhabhi article as a reference on how adult related sites are treated in mainstream medias.Savitha Bhabhi was indeed popular among Indian internet crowd.It got prominence only when some organizations complained and asked for censor. Govt. censored it and it came to medias,TVs and other debates.So,the outcome is ,unless Govt. bans or some NGOs or right wing people start opposing something, these kind of sites,even if they are having heavy traffic,will not get any reference anywhere.I've just managed to digg through Indian medias and found some interesting reference here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ways-of-the-Indian-pervert/articleshow/692375.cms. It talks about user names but never refers to such sites.A close inspection will show that these are indeed user names on such popular forums. A quick check on the site shows that they are trying to maintain a balance between smut and regular discussions.They have quite good technical,News,movie review and other sections.Anyway I don't want to post a Keep vote,unless we all have a consensus.Illegal.person (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The pertinent point here is that a proper source of reference is hard to find in the print media for such websites, however popular they might be because of the category they come under. Whatever references can be dug up will only be those that make a passing / indirect reference to the website. Whether such sources can be considered is an entirely different issue altogether i guess. Siddhesh (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe India needs Internet Censorship like China to block such sites from poisoning young minds —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a place to discuss the article, not your views on censorship. All of your edits to date appear to be soapboxing, such as on my and others' talk pages. Do you have anything constructive to contribute? Merely saying that you dislike the subject of this article is not helpful. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kinu are you a bot ? you guys discussed this for too long... delete it or STFU —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would recommend reading WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stop threatening new users , And I would recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Motivations_for_contributing —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (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.