Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warriors for innocence

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 REDIRECT to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. The clear consensus is that there should be no article here. So I'm going to redirect this. There is near on a deletion consensus, but I see no presssing need providing it stays redirected. There's less of a consensus about where to redirect, so I'm content if discussion on the talk page results in a better target. If the redirect is undone, then the article should be deleted.-Doc^g 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors for innocence

This page fails notability guidelines web 1 and 3. Also fails a BLP check by maliciously labelling the group using a biased groups' definition of them. Article is related to recentivist activity at LiveJournal. Only sources used on the entry are from livejournal blog posts, and the only reference to them in a non-livejournal based link is a passing mention in a single news story on news.com related to the suspension of potentially pedophilic blogs on Livejournal.com. Non-notable website. Kyaa the Catlord 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: This was a contested prod. I placed a couple of maintainence tags on the article and am actively editting the LiveJournal article subsection in which this group is being portrayed as the root cause of the suspension of allegedly pedophilia related articles. Kyaa the Catlord 08:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll go on record as saying I don't like them, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a deletion criteria. I'm calling delete here because one, there is a good chance that these people are really not notable, and two, the page almost feels like it could be speedied as an attack page due to the biased tone - in fact, it almost sounds like LJ drama. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that it fails either guideline, and it has the potential to be a fine article. --Apyule 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Web criteria 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works whose source is independent of :the content itself. (WFI does not meet this criteria since it is not the subject of any of the non-trivial articles linked on the article).

Web criteria 2: The content has won an award... (WFI? No awards here.)

Web criteria 3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well-known and independent, not including blogs. (WFI is a :self-published blog.)

Please explain how passing mention in news articles about LJ meets criteria 1 and 3, thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 09:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy - Although I did edit the article, it was only because the group's website contains malware which seriously slowed down my browser; if I would've surfed it using IE, I would probably be still cleaning up after it (thankfully I use Opera), so I put in a warning within the links section due to this. Otherwise the group goes beyond non-notable as just a fringe group, and the content in the article can easily be confined to the LJ suspension policy heading of the main LiveJournal article. Even then though, I'm still leery of including their link. Nate 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. -Tacubus 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy The section covers what's in the article, and it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability. -Tacubus 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, looks like solid reasoning. The group itself has no obvious significance outside LiveJounal (and pretty limited significance even there, if you ask me). Guy (Help!) 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All the sources (save one, which is primarily about the LJ incident and not this "group") are self-published blogtypes. At best, this fails notabililty requirements. At worst, it borders on NPOV violations and serves only to promote the agenda of the "group". /Blaxthos 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per above. Qjuad 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Very minor notability. No 3rd party sources about group. Purely related to LiveJournal episode. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think the article should not exist as a standalone, I should add a commendation for the nice work that user:CyntWorkStuff has done in improving the article. My opinion is not based on the quality of the article, just the underlying notability of the subject. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not only is the subject non-notable outside the LJ issue, there is serious question whether or not it actually exists outside their own website. They are not registered as a company or non-profit organization that I can find. -- Kesh 22:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. They are mentioned by several news sources, but they are only notable regarding this one event, and there's not much to say (that's notable) other than what's already in the LiveJournal article. Mdwh 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about an organization, that just happens to be web-based, not an article about a website. WookMuff 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment above. It has not been established that the organization even exists outside its website. As far as we know, this is a couple of people in an apartment with an agenda. If they are a legitimate company or non-profit organization, they would be required to file in their state of operation. I've yet to find any evidence of that. We need to be able to verify that first of all. -- Kesh 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Apologies, new to commenting/editing on Wiki, and I had put my comments in the talk page for the articce rather than here. Copy-paste follows

Other than this one incident on LiveJournal, where only a small fraction of accounts were even affected, WFI seems to be a pretty small-time organization/blog no more worthy of being included in wikipedia as an individual article than any other small-time blog. Shall we start making individual articles for each of the affected journals and communities now?

Support the AfD request. Any relevant information can be included in the subsection on the LiveJournal article. Possibly recreate the article should they become notable. 206.255.127.192 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

206.255.127.192 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COmment - Kudos to CyntWorkStuff for the improvements. Though, I still don't think they're notable beyond this issue. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed. The article has improved even though they still don't meet our notability requirements. And about treating them under WP:CORP, honestly, WP:WEB's requirement's are much more loose and it still has not been fulfilled. Kyaa the Catlord 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the LJ article. That's about the only thing this group is really known for or associated with. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:BLP may be a reason to edit the article but it isn't a reason for deletion in this case - the subject is not a living person but an organization, albeit apparently an organization with a very small membership (one or two). However, I'm not convinced this organization has established long-term notability. Certainly if they try to get Nabokov discussion groups, incest survivor communities, and teenage fanfic groups deleted in future on other websites, or if they decide on an all-out war against Romeo and Juliet, they may deserve an article in the future, but right now they're simply not notable enough. --Charlene 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Redirect where? The pertinent information is already handled on the LiveJournal wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Sorry about that: to the LJ article, and specifically the section about Strikethrough '07 (or whatever they're calling it there). --Charlene 10:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Anti-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why there? The group is clearly fringe and has only been involved with the subject of the LJ story. They hadn't been heard from before then. Nate 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to concur here, there's no reason for this article to even exist. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps redirect (even though I really don't think the article is particularly deserving of even that). The only reason the group was made at all notable is through the controversy with LiveJournal, which has been talked about in depth on that article. Even then, they only played a small role in the issue, LiveJournal and Six Apart caused the controversy all by themselves. --13² 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, devil's advocate here: I'm sure at the time it seemed like a good idea. =^_^=;; --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least, merge with another article. I don't think the Livejournal thing is the last we'll hear from WfI, unfortunately. Shawn K. Quinn 06:10, 8 June 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.