Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark pattern

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. Even after looking at Colapeninsula list of sources consensus agrees that it falls a bit short of GNG, willing to userfy though. Secret ^account 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark pattern

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

Neologism whose point-of-origin is the grad student author's website. As far as I can ascertain all in-context references to notion trace back to promotion of this term. There are as one might expect a large number of false hits for things like camouflage, but no legitimate book hits whatsoever. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article's author hasn't responded to the suggestion that notability be supported by reliable sources, rather than sites with which he's connected [1], which underscores the impression that this was developed with promotional intent. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The actual subject of the article appears to be deceptive user interfaces. Some of the links contain interesting musings, but none would appear to be a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a promotion of the site because the site does not sell but inform about an important subject. Originally the site was a wiki with the same content: a library of patterns. The definition of "dark pattern" is important because they are among many commercial webpages. It is not published in any book but the term starts being known in many usability and design magazines. Please, reconsider the deletion, because we might have to create the page again. Best, --Marcmiquel (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, and that the article is not intended to promote your and associated websites, there's been no evidence that this meets guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY. In order to meet notability requirements it will be necessary to provide reliable sources, WP:RELIABLE, as I've explained at the COI noticeboard discussion. Merely saying 'it's important' will do nothing. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be an honest but misguided attempt to publicise a personal point of view and website via a Wikipedia article. In the absence of reliable independent sources, deletion looks the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are in-depth independent sources out there:

CMO site senior editor piece
article at webdesign tuts Journalistic site

Both of these are somewhere in between blog and news article. I don't know if either could be considered reliable sources. But the dark patterns site has already made a bit of a splash. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where there has not been enough time for reliable secondary sources to write on this concept. But it could become a meme in time and if deleted, article re-creation is reasonable when reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are going to delete it now? Can't you keep it with the "signs" for a while until other sources become available? I think it is reasonable because I am aware of the movement it's coming.--Marcmiquel (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for it to be moved to your user space ("userfy") so you can work on it when sources become available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying is a good idea. Two things nobody's told the author yet: 1. The AfD discussion usually lasts a week, at which time an administrator decides whether to keep or delete the article, and 2. It's not for us to determine whether a subject's notability is imminent, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also hasten to point out that our articles on user interface, interaction design, and interface design could stand improvement. A researcher who's studying deceptive user interfaces might have assembled some verifiable information to contribute on the subjects. Even if this neologism is not yet ready for an encyclopedia article, we have several that relate to the underlying subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep (although it's not clear whether the article should be about the concept or the website). The darkpatterns.org "on the news" page[2] cites quite a bit of coverage. The following looks like RS: Independent (UK)[3], Engadget[4], Metro (UK)[5], brief Wired post[6] This might be RS: Search Engine Journal[7] There's a couple more I've not checked out. This article could be expanded and given some reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (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.