Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Light Center

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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Light Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Not encyclopaedic; most likely original research (in particular, not properly sourced); and mostly reads like an advert, anyway. One might also add that the entry for this site was deleted in October 2006 as spam (without an AfD discussion, AFAICT). Schneelocke 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteweak keep I haven't seen anything compelling to back up some of the claims. Upon creation attempts were made in other articles to not only link to this but make unsourced claims about it stature (on the Second Life article it was claimed that this was a prime competitor which was removed). An editor made an edit which indicated the majority of the article was written from in game experience which makes the integrity of it highly suspect.--Crossmr 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not speedy - I agree with the nominator's decision to put this through AfD rather than speedy; whoever deleted the original in Oct 2006 was wrong. However, although this article isn't incoherent or spam, it still doesn't belong on Wikipedia (per nom). Walton monarchist89 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the nominator is not proposing speedy. It was speedy deleted last time, but the content may have been different, so judging whether that was appropriate is not for here. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, I just wanted to make a point about the over-use of speedy deletes. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sufficient coverage per WP:WEB (I accidentally searched for "red light district"). ITweek, Wired, New Scientist, [USA Today], among other sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If its to be kept, then it needs to be reduced to verifiable stub size as the behaviour of the editor(s) involved in its creation and main editing is suspect as well as the integrity of the content they've added to the article. This edit [1] where the editor admits the article consists mostly of original research is a major problem. The attempts to put this in a position of prominence in other articles indicates a possible conflict of interest.--Crossmr 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I qualify this by recommending that it be seriously shortened/tightened up with an attempt to bring it into a wikipedia style article. Stormbay 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia, but I started this article after seeing that there was no entry on Red Light Center. After starting with a two paragraphs, I have posted to the Red Light Center users forum to request that users who are familiar with wikipedia formats edit the article and add appropriate content. Since we have over 200,000 registered users, and since we are growing at about 40% per month, and since RLC has been featured everywhere from Wired to CNN, I think a wikipedia article is appropriate. That said, I am unclear how an article written and edited by people who use the software could be anything but original research. Since I am the creator, can I site myself when I give statistics? I can pull them from my database, which is how I report them to the press. In any event, I am unclear what about this article makes it weak or warrents deletion, but I'm happy to try to fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obsidianac (talk • contribs) 02:31, January 25, 2007.

That's exactly the problem, and the Wikipedia-approved solution is to let somebody else write the article. Second Life, for example, has a page whose existence isn't controversial because it isn't written just by Linden Labs; there's a lot of journalists discussing the site, and even if editors of that page probably do include enthusiastic Residents, they don't have to speak for themselves but can quote those journalists. It's discouraged in general, and specifically disallowed if the referenced stats aren't publically available, because Wikipedia content aims for WP:Verifiability. Point is, as the creator, you basically can't. 89.103.97.43 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you cannot, violates WP:OR. The problem with the article is that much is unsourced and a comment was made by an editor which claims most of it is based upon in game experiences (also a violation of WP:OR. That puts other editors in a position of trying to figure out what is good and what isn't. If there isn't any clean-up forthcoming with citations there will be little else to do but gut the article and only keep that which is expressly referenced.--Crossmr 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, complete re-write: I am pleased with User:Obsidianac's forthrightness in admitting that it is original research, but unfortunately that's not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Also, as currently written, it's a pretty good advertisement, thus violating WP:ADVERT and WP:POV. However, there is nothing to prevent another editor writing a new article/stub from information gathered off of the links already listed in the current version, as well as the links posted by Dhartung in his comments above (Thanks, Dhartung!).--Aervanath 20:38, 29 January 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.