Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USNewsLink

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 of the debate was deleted early because the author/subject has requested deletion on her own site, and consensus is clearly leaning towards deletion. Rhobite 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USNewsLink

Old, but non-notable website. Original version had about 6 external links to the site. Main claim of notability seems to be that it is in the Library of Congress's Sept 11th Internet archive; this is not significant, as that archive contains a large proportion of all sites on the net as of that time; it's no claim of notability, afaik. Also the site has a prominent banner saying that it is being sold; this looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Delete JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP.USNewsLink's main claim to fame? There is no main claim to fame. This website is constantly updated and provides information about a variety of subjects and issues. Jesse's criticism is unwarranted and his summary of the site's importance is petty at worst and inaccurate at best. Jesse does not have a clue about the history of USNewsLink or its "external links.” USNewsLink's US Casualties pages are constantly read. The Archive is constantly read, and re-read. And I doubt that anyone at the Library of Congress would agree with Jesse as to the importance of the Sept. 11 Archive. While there may be many entries in the Archive, they were hand selected by an editorial committee. Every article was read by one or more people before it was nominated for inclusion. The efforts of Jesse to minimize the importance of the selection of USNewsLink's articles and commentary for the Sept. 11 Archive is certainly no reason to delete USNewsLink from Wikipedia. The fact that USNewsLink is for sale in no way implies that it will not continue in its present format because it is funded by my foundation. I will remain a Director and my stock ownership will revert to the foundation for USNewsLink's future overhead. And for the record, Jesse made no effort to notify me of his deletion nomination. I have revised the content to bare bones information and hope that Jesse will remove his objection and allow the content to stay in the directory. Usnewslink 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment on this. I didn't leave you a message before nominating the page because I noted that you were currently active on the article, and I assumed(correctly) that you would see the message, and would comment if you wished to. Regarding your description of Wikipedia as a "directory", please review the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also Wikipedia:Notability (websites) would be useful, as it lays out some good guidelines regarding the inclusion of articles on websites in Wikipedia. Reviewing the LoC site, I see that you are right - although the total collection is over 30,000 sites ("selected", but mere mebership in such a large list would not be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia), there is a smaller collection of approx. 2,300 sites which were further indexed, and USNewsLink is one of them, which I agree is some claim to notability. I still wish to leave this up for nomination for some more time, as I'm not yet convinced, but I do appreciate the comment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of USNewsLink's articles and commentary in the Sept. 11 Archive ensures that historians throughout the ages will have access to what Americans - in particular this American - thought and felt during the aftermath of Sept. 11. But from your view, people who read Wikipedia would have no interest in such. You think USNewsLink is not relevant or important enough to be included in Wikipedia and want it deleted. But thankfully, the Libary of Congress doesn't share your view. Usnewslink 11:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Barely any Google references. Alexa rank in the 4 million range. The site itself is not notable in any way. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are THIRTEEN PAGES of Google references which link directly to USNewsLink's content including it's main page and all other pages. Pleast stop lying about this Shinmawa, it's not civil or ethical. Usnewslink 11:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Your position is well-known. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shinmawa, click on the THIRTEEN PAGES of Google references and then retract your lie about USNewsLink's having "Barely any Google references". If you don't retract it, your silence will serve to underscore your efforts to willfully mislead the readers of this series of comments. Usnewslink 11:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough. Please keep things civil, assume good faith, and cease making personal attacks. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shimawa, identifying you as the liar that you are is not a personal attack - it is the truth. Do not lie about USNewsLink and expect me to remain silent. Is lying civilized? No it is not. Suggesting that USNewsLink be deleted by lying is unacceptable conduct on your part. Now retract your lie. Usnewslink 11:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website or non-notable corporation. — Adrian Lamo ·· 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Eivind 12:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• USNewsLink is certainly notable to those who visit it morning, noon, and night - and for those who will read it for centuries to come. LINKS TO USNEWSLINK'S CONTENTand ARTICLES can be found across the Internet including Wikipedia. The US Casualties pages are linked in many websites, including other news organizations. The objections to USNewsLink that have been raised here are empty, baseless, mistruths, and utter nonsense. Usnewslink 14:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Jim62sch 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant self-promotion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Haney as well. Rhobite 20:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rhobite has deleted all of my contributions to this website. The best thing to do in this case is to deal with the malicious defamation and harassment in a court of law which is exactly what I'm planning to do. You each have taken your best shot and now it's my turn.Usnewslink 21:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB. --InShaneee 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep: The old 'many far less notable topics elsewhere' argument aside, the 600+ goofle hits is marginal at best for a news organization. Ombudsman 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB standards. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB. By the way, it now has an anti-Wikipedia spray on its home page claiming Wikipedia claims it is a dictionary. For the record, it is an encyclopedia and there is no evidence that this article is notable enough for it. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong delete. If the alexa rank of over 4,000,000 were not enough, the legal threats and the slander of Wikipedia on the front of the site's webpage make it clear that this person does not deserve coverage on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, per Zoe.  RasputinAXP  c 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per ombudsman. Rob T Firefly 01:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Also, website's homepage has nonsense about Wikipedia at the top (though it doesn't seem to be directly related to this AfD). Fagstein 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoe. Sandstein 10:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB. However, Zoe keep in mind that an organization slandering wikipedia is not a criterion for deletion of an article about that organization, nor should it be if wikipedia is to function as an at all reliable resource. JoshuaZ 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and who is 151.213.251.229 who keeps blanking?
• Delete. Other than inclusion in the Library of Congress archive, no assertion is made of the subject's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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.