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 to delete the article. --  Denelson83  21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This article was mentioned on the Appletalk AFD and after reviewing the article, it also fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. It fails to follow the guidelines of WP:WEB, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Bear in mind that NPOV and OR are intended to change the form of an article, not outright delete them. That's what ((NPOV)) and ((OR)) are for. Notability? I've come across MacNN before several times... No comment on V, but in general this is an article that needs to be either improved or deleted for V+WEB; I suspect it might be a well enough mac news site, and is certainly linked to a fair amount. Clean it up, make it neutral. If it's deleted it'll simply be recreated again fairly fast, because it /is/ a big site. --Firien § 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That isn't a valid reason Firien. It fails WP:V an no matter what you believe, WP:V is not negotiable. All articles must follow it. WP:OR and WP:NPOV are not guidelines either. They MUST be followed just like WP:V. As for being deleted, if it is recreated then the page will be removed because of a repost, and most likely protected from recreation. However please explain why you believe that there should be an exception from WP:V for this article. Remember:

    1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
    2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
    3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

    and Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Comment As noted on the appletalker AFD, you have to make a distinction between an entire article failing V and a part of an article failing V. This article can be heavily cut down by V, that I agree with - but there remains some verifiable information, such as the existence of the site, what it's there for. It's apparently the second biggest mac forum; when it's been heavily strimmed by removal of unverifiable (and arguably useless) information, then it should be considered on its remaining merits. Again I give the example that if some small section of a random major article is unverifiable, the major article should not be outright deleted - but edited to remove the unverifiable information. In this case and the Appletalker case, a lot is cut out, sure. The articles were both written POV and littered gently with groupvanity, and they'll be heavily cut down by V criteria. But the distinction needs to be made between an entire article failing V and parts of an article failing V. --Firien § 09:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT While there are now some 'references' in the article, they still are not about MacNN. Articles must be full-length, featured articles about MacNN itself to satisfy WP:V. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's right Brian: OR and NPOV aren't designed as grounds for deletion. Note that they're content policies. They can be grounds for deletion but only because of practical considerations, such as when an article would be empty after applying those policies. In fact, the Verifiable policy isn't grounds for deletion either except in the same special case: when the sum total of verifiable information is nothing ("unverifiable"), the article gets deleted. They're non-negotiable, yes, but what they address non-negotiably is what we write about things, not what things we write about. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. WP:V & WP:OR are absolutely non-negotiable.--Isotope23 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Seems to be notable just by the amount it's referenced and its stories are carried by others news sites. However, I haven't been able to find any sources that actually discuss the site. This might be a strange artefact of it being "obviously" notable such that no-one has bothered to write anything about it. However, for lack of independent coverage, there is nothing that can be written about it that will pass both WP:V and WP:OR. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm afraid it fails WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEB.--Tuxley 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SPAM news network --Xrblsnggt 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It reads like one big advertisement for a business nobody knows or cares about, i.e. SPAM. 84.73.138.207 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP opinions are discarded, mind. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Facts are facts regardless if they come from an IP or not. 84.73.138.207 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't follow WP:WEB, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. It clearly fails WP:V. These requirements are not negotiable and apply to all articles. Therefore this article has to be deleted. 129.129.128.84 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually not how those policies work. Besides, IP opinions are discarded. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can discard "IP opinions" all you want. The violation of five WP polices however remains proven. And that's why this article should be deleted. 129.129.128.84 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Saxifrage: failing WP:V is the best reason to delete an article - If we only deleted articles that failed WP:V and/or WP:SPAM, we'd still kill all the articles that need to be killed. If we strip the page of the content that fails WP:V, then it's blank, which is a criterion for speedy, basically. WP:WEB is just a guideline, we can ignore it at will basically, WP:V is a policy we cannot ignore. WP:WEB is essentially just a polite way of saying Axe articles that fail WP:SPAM, WP:OR and/or WP:V - I think it's preferable to skip the middle man, and stick to how it violates policy. text Quoted from WilyD--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Notice I voted delete because applying WP:V would leave it empty. It's a subtle and academic point, granted, but I still think the distinction is important for a good understanding of the nuances and appplication of policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to satisfy the requirements for WP:WEB--Auger Martel 12:07, 27 August 2006 (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.