Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Points of interest related to Websites on Wikipedia
Category - WikiProject - - Deletions -

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to websites. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|websites}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|websites}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to webcomics and fora.Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:WEB.


Contents

[edit] Websites

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 as a non-notable advert/neologism. (aeropagitica) 11:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remote Website Development

Started out as a subtle advertisement, now just a low-content, non-notable neologism OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

delete. It appears to have been started (same time, same sole contributor) as Ethos KMS (which I AfD'ed as blatant corporate vanity/spam). That page's sole wikilink is to the RWD disambig page, whose entry for the page at hand here is documented as "An EthosKMS.com Process for Web Development"...neologism indeed! DMacks 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. Vanity. Advertising. :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DONOT delete RWD is not related to a certain corporation. It is Software process of web Development. a lot of companies use it. For more info go to goole. bassamh August 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassamh (talk • contribs).
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.


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. Sango123 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Call Games

This is a non-notable website that does not include any outside sources within the article and generates 8 unique google results. Erechtheus 01:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is a brand new site, created in August 2006; I don't think it needs an article yet. --Brianyoumans 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spamgasmic. 205.157.110.11 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Khoikhoi 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable mathewguiver 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Save The website has been up since June 2006, not August. This isn't spam, many gaming sites have wikipedia articles. LastCallGames 14:53, 29 August 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Newer sites don't belong on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 08:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable "fairly new sites" are generally not notable for Wikipedia. Only an ingenue would not recognize the possible advantages to a new site having a Wikipedia article. :) Dlohcierekim 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No Traffic rating at Alex. :) Dlohcierekim 19:05, 30 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are dumb

In my opinion, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)  Tivedshambo (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - author is now providing citation, including listing on Guardian Newpaper website. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of references are from blogs; single Guardian link is from Guardian "diary." OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that site meets WP:WEB. The references provided are blogs and forums... similar to the Guardian diary note from above, note that the Slashdot link is provided within a thread, not in the featured story itself. Alexa rank: 367,084. --Kinu t/c 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB; hell, could be deleted per WP:CSD. Ryūlóng 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which one? There's no CSD for nonnotable websites, unfortunately. VoiceOfReason 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

^ Delete about 700 google hits. no google news hits. :) Dlohcierekim 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete alexa rank to low, nothing in media. Fails.--Andeh 10:08, 30 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 14:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JamesWeb

Does not appear even close to making WP:WEB. Google turns up very little other than related self promotion. Alexa claims rank over 2,000,000. Also, please note there are several redirects (Windows RG, Jamesweb, "windows rg", and Windows rg) which should probably go if this page goes.

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.


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. --- Deville (Talk) 23:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ExclamationSoft

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP, no sources given or likely to be found. Prod contested by anon. Delete --Huon 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I read that Forbes article before nominating the article for deletion, and it says: "Our website and server monitoring software and suite of email client tools are used by..." Our software? I doubt this publication is independent of ExclamationSoft. Concerning the Google hits: Anything computer- or internet-related tends to give rather large numbers of hits. For ExclamationSoft, we have 271 unique hits. --Huon 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, the Forbes article is a company-supplied directory entry, on the same level as a Yellow Pages ad. Google the text and you'll find that it's straight out of the company's self-description VoiceOfReason 14:22, 30 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reedus Design

Blatant advertisement for non-notable company, no sign of satisfying WP:CORP criteria. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:14, 29 August 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.


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. Punkmorten 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother3.org

Non notable website, failing web notability (hasn't been featured in important media, hasn't won a well known and independent award, neither is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators). Alexa rank of 304,480, forum with 401 members, notability claim is that they are currently translating a game, Mother 3. Site is fairly empty (Download and Tutorials sections are empty), with few links. Deprodded without comment.[1] -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I wish them luck since Nintendo doesn't seem to have any intention of localizing the game, but they are not-notable. TJ Spyke 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being in the process of translating a game isn't notable. Perhaps we should revisit this when they've actually finished the job. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Blood red sandman 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but leave open to re-creation later if they finish the job and it becomes popular (which is very possible, given how popular the Mother/Earthbound series is). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article for a fan translation site that doesn't even have a single release? Priceless. Show me a beta patch and then we'll talk. GarrettTalk 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article seems more like an advertisement to me, and the website has hardly any members. --Kurotsyn 21:01, 2 September 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.
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abandonia_Reloaded

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article, as I've stated again and again, seems to not be so much an encyclopedia article as it is a slight bit of a vanity article by the fans of this website. This website has gained a few awards from a site known as DaFastLane, but I haven't been able to locate any information about DaFastLane on Wikipedia (aside from the article proposed for deletion here) or Google (a few hits), and it isn't listed on Alexa. They won five awards in one year, but that does not yet qualify them for notability under WP:WEB, which no other eligibility requirements are met on either.

Until they win these DaFastLane awards again next year, or until they satisfy the requirements another way, I feel it's safe to say that the article deserves deletion. Sephylight 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - The actual Alexa rank seems to be 115,037 (as opposed to in the 14000s for Abandonia). I'm not sure it qualifies as "hugely popular", or notable. --Brianyoumans 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not everything can be measured by an Alexa ranking, Abandonia Reloaded is a site dedicated to freeware games which is in itself a niche market, it is one of the biggest sites in his class providing FREE valuable content to it's visitors through the means of reviews and screenshots. I think this point alone justifies to have Abandonia Reloaded as it's own article. Also even though it might be written by fans (as I imagine is the case for most articles on wikipedia) of the site, the article is written from a neutral point of view. Braindead1 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Still, there are standards for what is notable and what isn't, and the site in question hasn't qualified yet under those standards. Merge it with Abandonia
  • Keep - While the site isn't the most popular by Alexa rankings, it is important to note that the site has gone from being completely unknown to achieve an Alexa rank of 114,065 (as of writing) in just a little over a year. Which in itself is quite the feat, and even though the site was created by four people who originated from Abandonia, the two sites are completely different and cater to completely different groups of net-users. Which goes to show that AR has managed to make a name for itself. Another point is that there wasn't really a Freeware center, before AR was created. Generally you had six options before, if you wanted a freeware game, and they were all pretty limited. You could either go to the AGS community or AGI community and get adventure games, go to RPG Maker and get RPGs, go to the Game Maker community and locate games that are mostly puzzle oriented, go to HOTU and try to locate the freeware games in the sea of abandonware (which are mostly AGS, AGI and RPG Maker games), or you could type "freeware" in Google and hope that you would find something you liked after several hours of tiresome searching. AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site, regardless of age, engine and genre. And due to that diversity the site has active producers with experience from game making in AGS, AGI, Game Maker, as well as independent producers who created their own games from scratch. And while HOTU does have a mix of freeware too, that site isn't revolving around such games. AR is the only site that focuses solely on showcasing these games, and a lot of effort goes into showcasing each game as best as possible, including high-quality banners. Abandonia Reloaded also focuses on helping people create their own games, using whatever engine they themselves want to use (or create). As such, I think the site is worthy to have its own page on Wikipedia. Tom Henrik
  • Keep - It's difficult to measure anything's notability merely through awards or publications, or by statistics. In fact, WP:WEB clearly states that it is meant as a guideline, not as an absolute. The discussion linked to that guideline also shows that even amongst the more dedicated editors, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes notability. Abandonia: Reloaded is a site that is a part of a niche as it is dedicated to showcasing freeware productions, and it is also part of a growing movement to bring these productions to the general populace. The purpose of Abandonia Reloaded, and the purpose of this Wiki article on Abandonia Reloaded is not to advertise or promote traffic (AR is not a commercial endeavor), but rather to educate and inform; which, as I understand it, is the purpose of Wikipedia itself. Allow the editors to revise the article to prevent any tone issues, and expand it so that it may even better fulfill that purpose. Deletion is unnecessary, and considering the site's growth in the last year (from 440,000 to 114,000 in Alexa ranking since January, and from 115,000 to 114,000 in the last month alone), it would likely just be reinstated once this question of ranking is less of an issue, in any case. Taikara 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per what Taikara said. Guidelines are guidelines, not specific rules. --Abi79 06:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Considering that Abandonia Reloaded has been online for a year and 3 months thus far and to grow that much during that time surely shows a demand for what is being offered. Considering that the site continues to grow and is getting increased views as time is progressing also adds to the fact that the entry should stay. The wiki entry as Taikara has stated is more to educate and inform than to advertise. The wiki will be expanded as time progresses, and the rule that is being expressed for deletion as has been said, is more a guideline than anything and with all the site has managed to accomplish in such a short time, definitely think it deserves it's own entry.DeathDude 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It is perhaps notable that the above comment is DeathDude's first and only edit to Wikipedia, and that Taikara and Tom Henrik have edited this discussion, the article itself, and nowhere else.Brianyoumans 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It is also perhaps notable that Wikipedia is an open project that claims an attitude of anti-elitism in editing. Therefore, it should not matter that I (or my fellow discussion contributors) have edited only one article, or offered my opinion in only one article of deletion debate. However, if it would somehow give my opinion more "power" (though by the definition of anti-elitism, it shouldn't), I can easily copy edit and/or expand other articles (and in fact, I already have). However, in my (apparently less valuable) opinion, it seems that if people care enough about the article to contribute to the discussion regarding its potential deletion, then those opinions should not be completely ignored due to lack of prolificness. Taikara 06:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been spending some time reading over the guidelines and principles of Wikipedia, and as Taikara has mentioned, anti-elitism is not an idea that Wikipedia (or it's founder, Jimbo Wales) support. Jimbo has the only set principles for how to operate Wikipedia in his user page, and it says, amongst other things: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." By giving our oppinions lesser value, because we are new to the project is completely against the open-ness and ideology of Wikipedia. And just for reference, just like Taikara, I have been active in other articles in the past, but I wasn't registered then - so you'll have to use my IP if you want a list. But, yes, this is the only discussion I have attended, because I feel that, for once, I have something to contribute to the discussion at hand. Tom Henrik 12:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There're several reasons why this page's not meeting the requirements, even though they've been claimed to be true.

For one, those so-called five awards don't belong to Reloaded. They belong mostly to a person, not a site, that person being Kosta, for the work and effort he's put in Abandonia. It's quite pathetic that Reloaded calls his awards as theirs and use them to claim rights on a page on here. The only award that does go to the site, is only a nomination, not an actual award. It needs to be mentioned that for the DaFastLane Awards, anybody can nominate anybody, and the people from Reloaded've all nominated Reloaded for as many things as they could, of which this one got pulled through. Same goes with that "Most helpful scener" award. As Abandonware's spread out over multiple communities, the scener who can have most people vote for him, will win that one, even though I can name ten sceners that're far more helpful, and that's just from one community. The only person that actually's an established value in the scene, is Kosta, who did deserve the awards he got. Those still aren't awards for Reloaded, but for Kosta. In other words, all those so-called awards're self-induced by Reloaded itself, which I don't think will make them count at all.

Another is their so-called claim to be the first site dedicated to freeware games. I don't know where they got that, and everybody knows that's a lie. They even have affiliates on their main page, linking to other freeware sites that've been 'round far longer, so either they don't know their own site or they're lying badly 'bout that.

Yet another thing, which goes hand in hand with the previous part, but seems to've been used as a separate reason, is that they claim that before Reloaded, you had to search the AGS, AGI and Gamemaker communities, and aside from that, using Google. So far, they've pretty much only used the AGS community, so that's been untrue, plus, if they think that's the only way to find freeware games, it just shows the site won't live long enough to become notable, as those that run it show they don't understand what they're focusing on. There are far more ways to get to freeware than just those three, and that's the very basics that should be known to run such a site for a longer period of time.

As far as the notability goes, they have a bit of a point. I know some of my friends know that site, and I know a few freeware game developers that've been in touch with them, and they all think the site provides lowest-quality information (up to the point that some games' information's all in Engrish) and's generally an insult to both the developers as to the games themselves, so they do know the site, but prefer to stay as far away from it as possible. Also, those freeware game developers they did get in touch with, were mostly, if not all, brought in touch with that site by a member they kicked out a long time ago, and although they haven't been in touch with any of those freeware developers, they do seem to claim his work as theirs whenever they can.

Another thing you can notice if you dig around on their and Abandonia's forums, is that they have a high tendency to mob whenever something or somebody has an opinion that goes against them. It's already happening on here, and you can be sure they'll bring more of their croonies in to increase the number of people that back their view up, but always just say the same thing (like Deathdude). So be aware of that. You might see five-six voices here, but they're still just one and a couple of puppets. --195.144.90.5 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be relevant, but the IP of the above poster matches the IP of the mentioned member who was "kicked out", and it seems like more of a personal rant than an attempt to address the issue at hand. To address some of the (fairly decent) points mentioned, however:
It's not relevant indeed, except for that it gives a proper view of the matter, not the heavily-coloured, holier-than-thou view that's given by the AR mob.
  • It is not stated in the article that any of Kosta's awards belong to AR.
It is stated that AR has won "several awards" and it has a link to "Abandonia Reloaded's awards", which clearly shows Kosta's awards there.
  • It was also not stated in the article that AR is the first site dedicated to freeware, however, I have added a bit to makes sure it is perfectly clear that is not the case.
Tom Henrik said this a bit higher: "AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site"
  • It is stated in the article that there is a large ratio of adventure games. However, from the references of the games in the content section of the article, there is obviously more than "just" AGS games on the site.
That's true. The ratio's been going from 1/2 AGS games to 1/3th slowly, but quite some people on the forums've been complaining that Abandonia Reloaded should've been called Abandonia AGS or Abandonia Adventures throughout its history, and they all've been kicked out for it. The ratio always've shown this to be a problem, but's always been ignored up til recently, so you can't possibly say it hasn't been focusing on AGS and not on any other engine.
The issue being discussed here is not quality, or methodology, or the history with the above poster, or his issues with the person who won that "most helpful scener" award or the site itself, as the article makes no mention of any of those. The issue at hand is notability, and the above poster admittedly states that he considers AR to have some notability. Taikara 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue being discussed here is whether or not the page meets Wikipedia requirements. Nor the awards, nor how "special" AR is, nor its notability (as those friends of mine weren't more than five, which can hardly apply as being "notable") That is also what I'm addressing here. If you call countering fake arguments and trying to win a discussion by dropping in as many people that parrot what you want them to say with actual facts a grudge, then yep, I'm talking out of a grudge here.--195.144.90.5 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
We get it, you had issues with the AR community, and you're doing your best to get the article deleted. However, the bottom line here is that all of your complaints are fully fixable without resorting to the deletion of the article, as per WP:DEL. The notability issue is what is being addressed in this AfD discussion - and that is an actual fact. Taikara 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What's having had issues with the community got to do with this? I was talking about why the page doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards. So far, the "being special", the awards and the notability've been claimed as reasons for that. I don't understand what you think I'm talking about, but that's what this entire discussion's been about. If breaking those Wikipedia policies can be fixed without deleting the page, then please, feel free to let us know how. --195.144.90.5 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I already have... it's called editing. But as a suggestion, you could probably start by actually reading the WP:DEL policy, where it clearly states that articles lacking NPOV and containing accuracy issues do not necessarily need to be deleted. However, I think that your objection to the article being kept is quite clear (and we'll just pretend you're refering to notability, and nothing else, as all the other complaints do not require deletion). No need to continue beating a dead horse, unless that's just how you get your kicks. Taikara 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that I have to both apologize and clarify my earlier statement. (Hopefully without going too far of topic from the discussion at hand). When I said that "Another point is that there wasn't really a Freeware center, before AR was created." and "AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site, regardless of age, engine and genre." I did not mean that AR was the very first freeware site to have been created. Far from it. What I meant was that AR is the most notable of the lot. If you do a quick Alexa ranking with other sites, you'll find that no-one is ranked as high as AR. (Apart from HOTU, but that isn't a freeware only dedicated site. It just have a lot of freeware games thrown into the mix).

Traffic Rank for gamehippo.com: 63,957 and Traffic Rank for caiman.us: 31,873 seems to be higher. Besides, if you don't mean that AR is the first freeware site, then it's no use in actually saying it is, as it'll only mislead people that don't know about it.

For instance, www.BigBlueCup.com (The AGS official homepage) has an Alexa rating of 120 353, yet is has a Wikipedia page of its own.

On the other hand, AGS's been mentioned on various independant sites and's bound to have various independant publications, which's another way besides Alexa ranking to be worthy of a Wikipedia article.

There is no doubt that AGS deserves the page, but from a purely Alexa statistical point of view, AR should deserve it more. So, just having a good Alexa ranking should not be the only criteria for an Wikipedia article (as there would be no discussion whether AR deserved it or not, then), but in my mind in order to deserve an article, the site should offer something that no-one else does, and that makes it unique.

The policies're clear on what makes a site apply for being worthy of an article on here and what not. Besides, even if going aside from the policies is a way, then that reason still doesn't apply for AR, as there're other, more well-known sites that've been 'round far longer that offer the same thing.

In AR's case, this uniqueness is found in the effort placed into each single update,

This effort exists out of "Requirements: Processor recommended", "Bit cheap some enemies" along with other Engrish, leaving entire desktops in the screenshots, so you can even see what song the person that took that screenshot was listening to and a whole lot of empty fields in each information part then? Plus all the mess-ups in the updates themselves?

the interviews with the makers, the diversity of games hosted (in terms of engine and genres)

Again, check the ratio of adventure games (which're pretty much all AGS games) against the other games. I wouldn't exactly call diversity of engine and genre a strong point of AR.

and the banners made for the games. I know that there is an overload of adventure games on the site, and we are trying to fix that. However, as AR is a community driven project, we showcase what people review. As long as we get in more adventure games, than other games - we will continue to put out more adventures.

If you check those submissions, that community seems to exist out of Deathdude then. That's one person, who's part of the staff. One person and an occasional passer-by isn't exactly a community, and if that one person's part of the crew, he'd know that there're too many AGS games on there in comparisson with the other genres/engines. In other words, it doesn't exactly show to be a community-driven project, and the focus on one specific engine instead of an equal share of all genres and engines is the site's choice.--Kon-Tiki 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (aka [User:195.144.90.5|195.144.90.5])

If you take a look at the forum topic in which we ask the public for help ( http://www.reloaded.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=116 ), you will see that the number of Adventure games on that list is very small in comparrison to the other genres. (If the above link is against the rules of this discussion, then I apologize, and a mod should feel free to edit it away). So, in conclusion, I apologize for the above statements that might have been confusing, but I hope that I have managed to get across my views for why I believe that AR deserves an article of its own (and not just be merged with Abandonia).Tom Henrik 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Just to make a note of it, against WP:TPG, Kon-Tiki has been editing into other people's comments in this discussion, making the flow of discussion a bit more confusing than necessary. Please be aware that the indented, unsigned comments within a few comments above belong to Kon-Tiki (who is also 195.144.90.5) --Taikara | Talk 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Taken from [2] (fourth item): (...) If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).--Kon-Tiki 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Kon-Tiki, below the comment you are responding to, not within. You see, by editing your response into their comment, it becomes unclear who is actually responding, as the individual sections of your comments are not signed. It's kind of like kindergarten - write your name on your things, and keep your hands in your own personal space and off of other people's things. I would hope you could comprehend that basic common courtesy, but please pardon me for attempting to inform others who may be reading this discussion what has occured for their benefit. Taikara | Talk 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's comprehendible and clear enough this way, as the flow obviously shows two blocks, not one. If I'd've used various amounts of indention, it'd be weird, but it's crystal clear the way it is now and has nothing to do with lack common courtesy or any other insults you're throwing at me.If you're so set on proper formatting, you might want to tell Tom to put a bulleting in front of his comment, though, as that does disturb the flow, as nobody can tell where the previous comment stopped and his starts, except from reading through and seeing where the context claims a new comment. --Kon-Tiki 02:11, 6 September 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.
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. Sango123 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ppmsite

Contested prod. Non-notable site fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is 1,440,263... the highest I've ever seen VoiceOfReason 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Article also has NPOV issues, tone issues... --Brianyoumans 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dbchip 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic promo page ("we are making...") Fram 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all Dlyons493 Talk 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think I saw this on RC once, it definately hasn't improved. —Khoikhoi 02:45, 30 August 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.
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 = KEEP. -Doc 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information Clearing House

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

First Deletion Reason – violates WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria, because the ICH is not the subject of “multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” In addition, the ICH does not meet WP:WEB criterion of mention in “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations” (emphasis added). Reliable here is defined under WP:RS, which does not include blogs and other sources without editorial oversight. Nor does the article provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section, as is required under WP:WEB. In all, there are only 416 hits for the phrase (“Information Clearing House” and “World News Daily”) with blogs included. By comparison, the completely non-notable jackass “Morton Devonshire” gets 1170 hits, and I wouldn’t start an article on that joker if my life depended on it. Morton devonshire 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? 416 hits? Strange, i got 954 000 hits. Or 505 000 hits, if you try another way.--Striver 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please address the argument. It fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria. If you don't think I've quoted the policy word for word, take a look yourself. Morton devonshire 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul Craig Roberts [3] writes for ICH. That should settle notability. --Striver 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - On Alexa, I get a rank of 12,075 - seems pretty popular. --Brianyoumans 04:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The sources range from major Us newspapers websites - national and regional, international newspapers websites like The Independant, Haaretz, Toronto Star. I live in Canada, I read international news from various sources and I can tell you ICH is what is says it is. Some right-wing extremists / neo-con fascists might not like that this site is one of the few news sources that brings an alternative to the war cheerleaders that dominate the US news space, but we can't expect them to be fair, as they support an illegal regime who stole two national elections. — Possible single purpose account: 70.55.61.212 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete - "Seems pretty popular" does not address the valid issues raised by the nom. The 954,000 number above is not selective for this site: it is a return on every mention of a clearing house of any kind, not the one referring to World News Daily. The 400+ hits is more accurate, and we don't need to promote another news source that does not meet WP:RS. Sandy 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"InformationClearingHouse.info" gives 441 000 hits. Mortons search is quite arbitrary.--Striver 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please address the criteria rather than your personal feelings. Morton devonshire 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
They have already been addressed by Striver: Paul Craig Roberts [4] writes for ICH. The source is also not less reliable than other sources. Your emphasising "reliable" in the policy excerpt is not what I call proof, and the burden is on you I'm afraid. The Google hits you report are basically made up. Also your serial and POV candidatures for deletion (which are also largely absurd and unsuccessful, and therefore time wasting) diminish the credibility of any others. [5] [6] [7] PizzaMargherita 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:WEB criteria focuses on the mention of the site in question in reliable mainstream sources -- that's what establishes its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, not whether the site itself is reliable. Please look at WP:WEB for further clarification. Ad hominem is irrelevant. Morton devonshire 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep: From Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, to Paul Craig Roberts, what more do you want? Google search for information clearing house gives the site in the two first hits and produces thousands of other links.— Possible single purpose account: 128.110.251.138 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep : The site is a lving legend , This is not a debate it is a political battle , Freedom of speech must be maintained and removing ICH would surely be followed by an attempt to remove LGF. The site is worthy of its place on Wikepedia amd this pathatic debate should not have even began. I wonder which little neocon came up with this bright idea to restrict information that they would rather others did not know. The site is up their with the best, its sources , contributers and reputation is second to none ... can we stop this nonsense http://terrorism-news.blogspot.com/ — Possible single purpose account: 82.16.235.194 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep: This site aggregates articles of a particular philosophical position and is extremely valuable. If you wish to question the validity of the articles, I assume you intend to treat Fox News in a similar fashion? I'm surprised and concerned that consideration would be given to it's removal - it's one of only three sources that I rely on daily for news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep: I suspect the reason why some want the ICH entry deleted is because it provides an antidote to the deluge of propaganda we are fed every day, and therefore jars with their preferences. There are many original articles posted to ICH as first, or first equal, publisher and therefore it is worthy of its modest entry. If ICH goes then so should Alternet, Indymedia, Aljazeerah.info, and all the rest. Wikipedia has bigger problems than this issue, especially the tendentious character of many articles on controversial topics. On Google with this query, which excludes the site itself: -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House” Results 361 - 370 of about 911,000 for -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House”. (0.26 seconds) Morton Devonshire is a Jackass by his own words. — Possible single purpose account: 203.110.29.3 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • 'Keep'. It is a far more reliable source of world information than any other I have found on the net. It is a true antidote for the corporate media which tends to publish mostly government approved propaganda. If the NYT or WP or Fox rate an entry (and they fail every criteria for puplishing "verified" information) then Information Clearing House must have its entry retained. The fact that Information Clearing House has an entry is not an endorsment of its publishing philosophy. It is worth pointing out to the geniuses at Wiki that "verifiability" implies a statement of truth not that the statement comes from a "reliable source" even reliabe sources have been known to mislead. Learn your Latin. I would also point out that the reasons given for deletion are bogus. Steve Lane 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Steve Lane — Possible single purpose account: Steve Lane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep: Who needs YOUR web rules? The original anarchy of the internet is the best illustration of a free market in action. Markets are inevitably self-organizing to the best interest of participants, provided state control and corporate-backed state regulation/manipulation don't interfere (Wikipedia is a prime example). Those who ask that ICH or any other web page conform to the standard seek just such control and manipulation. Freedom is present when one is free to say no. The free market will determine if ICH is relevant, not some geek-speak defined standard. Apparently, some among us can handle "free-markets", just not ones that involve the free exchange of ideas. Chalk it up another effort by the stato-cons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs).
  • KEEP: Who made you the censors of what any one of us reads? ICH provides a valuable source of information that is not widely available thru the mainstream media. I for one would much rather receive my daily news summary from ICH than from MSNBC, FOX, or any of the other biased media sources. Whether or not you agree with the content or the opinions of the contributors, ICH has the right under the constitution of this country to express their opinions and those of their contributors. This is what its all about!!! Thanks, Larry Hearold (lhearold@micro-consultants.com). — Possible single purpose account: 151.203.197.188 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. This site is not sufficiently notable, and the article lacks independent, reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Google site:informationclearinghouse.info returns 13 700 hits. U236 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: U236 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • KEEP: We live in a highly polarized world where commercial media is largely no longer used to educate and report, but instead targeted to form opinion and guide the reader toward the desired result. Corporate media has uncritically helped the current US government spread misinformation about Iraq in order to get the desired result of war backed by the American people. Corporate Media is largely responsible for misleading the populance as well as lawmakers, and therefore the statement “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles,... television documentaries,...” is an oxymoron in itself. Corporate Media is the modern State Propaganda tool. ICH uses news sources that include foreign media as well as providing original editorial content. It is a legitimate form of media and should therefore be kept. Jared Kenwell (jkenwell@telus.net) — Possible single purpose account: 198.166.16.87 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. Not verifiably notable; lacks credible references. (Closing admin: Please watch for socks.) -AED 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to see why ICH shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to translate the original complaint into simple English for me. Is it a question of whether ICH presents "reliable" or "verifiable" information? I don't read the mainstream press or watch TV news because I don't trust the mass media to give me an honest report of what's going on in the world. Instead I look through the offerings at ICH and several other sites each day and click on the links that interest me. Some are news items and some are opinion pieces. IMO, the news articles often have an implied pov, while most opinion pieces include factual information to support their views. I'm old enough to distinguish between fact and opinion, and between one person's alleged facts and those which can be substantiated. What I'm saying is that I feel ICH serves a valuable service to the community and I don't automatically agree with everything I see there. Manjusri053 05:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Manjusri053 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • EXCUSE ME! Someone around here is being dishonest, saying that my account is "single purpose" and I'm a new participant who's "made little or no other contributions outside this topic." I opened this accoount last November after I forgot my previous account name, and anyone can see that I participated in the editing or discussion of other pages prior to this one. I would appreciate it if the person who slandered me this way would remove their disparaging notations. Thank you. Manjusri053 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The tag doesn't say you are new. It says you have made little or no contributions outside this topic. You have 12 edits in 10 months. That is "little or no contributions." There is no slander and there is nothing wrong with having low edit counts. Just that for assessing consensus of the community, closing admins can discount non-established users when determining consensus. --Tbeatty 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I mostly agree with Manjusri053. The template is ill-conceived and is anyway incorrectly used in many occasions in this page. My understanding is that SPA means that the account has been created on purpose in order to vote for this AfD, i.e. the template is meant to warn that somebody might be creating SPAs specifically to "vote" more than once in this article, which is clearly not the case in many cases. I trust the judgment of the closing admin who will unfortunately have to check each claimed SPA. PizzaMargherita 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: the description already offers a reasonable disclaimer; at this point, it should be for the reader to decide what is "reliable." To censor this is to play politics and that would make Wikipedia, itself, unreliable. 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Taliot — Possible single purpose account: Taliot (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Keep Information Clearing House is a better source of information than most of the 'mainstream' drivel that is fed to us a news. I don't even agree with everything I read on it and I often end up doing a wider search on topics which I find particularly interesting. I am not surprised that someone out there is trying to get it kicked off wikipedia but I don't think it is wikipedia's role to act as a censor every time someone reads something they disagree with.Puffinbirds 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Puffinbirds (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep: As mentioned before "reliability" is not guaranteed ... even by NYT (remember Judith Miller's story about WMD in Iraq!). This article fits perfectly well in the context of alternate media. By definition, alternate media does not aim for popularity like the mainstream media which rely on advertisement revenue and have to be "popular". IMHO, this site provides one type of viewpoint and I find it valuable. The article seems to be neutral in mentioning that it has leftist slant. So visitors have been warned about the orientation. Viplav 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Viplav (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep: Information Clearing house serves the twin functions of publishing articles by such notables as Robert Fisk, and preserving otherwise short-lived (rotated out) news items from other news sources. Its also notable for presenting views froma wide range of different countries. Its clearly a notable site. As others have already said, one wonders whether the RFD is actually about notability or is in fact about the content. Keep political deletion of opposing viewpoints out of Wikipedia. --Nantonos 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) contribs


KEEP Is this a joke? According to the WP:NOT page — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

 1.4  Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 1.6  Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site.
 1.8  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Also:

What your user page is not
Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see User page help.

And yet this page is allowed? The cheek!
Check out the list of friends in connection to this "discussion".


Regards the deletion process

Abuse of deletion process
... XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.

The article on ICH is a concise summary of the site. According to alexa, the site has about 1/10th to 1/20th the reach of a major "left leaning" paper like The Guardian. ICH is however more popular than the notable climate site Realclimate and (interestingly) about 1/3rd as popular as The Whitehouse. It has a similar reach to Znet a website of comparable political orientation. Google indicates that 7,340 sites link to ICH, although Amazon.com suggests 4165

A search at Amazon.com reveals that 40 recent books make reference to ICH, suggesting that it serves as a public searchable archive for articles, pictures and pdf files. This fact suggests it is a noteworthy site, at least for authors of popular history or opinion. Unlike Realclimate, which has been noticed by scholarly sources such as Nature ICH has not had similar recognition and is generally (like wikipedia) a tertiary source.
And yes, I may be a user who has made little or no other contributions outside this topic... I'm not white-anting the site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP This is a useful source of mainstream news articles and leftist comment that gives a useful slant not found elsewhere - helps me keep an open mind on the big events that governments and big media spin in their own way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP The ICH website has been destroyed numerous times by politically motivated crackers full of hate. This attack on ICH in wikipedia is probably just one more part of the actions targetting such sites and people who run them and contribute to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


KEEP: What ostensibly validates existence at Wikipedia is "reliable published works" in newspapers, etc. There is an article in today's ICH, http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?optionfiltered=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=135 which explores the removal of a story from the NYT website, available in the UK, as it is in the U.S. The story is removed only to UK readers. In addition, "The Paper of Record" was not even delivered to the UK, yet the story that was blocked was printed by other papers that depend on "reliable published works." The NYT continues to sully its supposed reputation by this blatant censorship. Why on earth would Wikipedia want to follow that path and call it 'upstanding'? Is ICH to be censored because they, somehow, do not follow the shameful and unreliable paths that are taken by too many other "reliable published works"? This self-serving phrase is like a well-known other: "All the News That's Fit to Print." Which is to say, neither of these phrases are accurate or truthful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP It strikes me as unreal that this is even considered for deletion. Ryz 10:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Just more conspiracy theory cruftiness.--MONGO 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is crufty some kind of code word? I note it has a wiki entry. WP:NOT 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs).

KEEP ICH has an unbiased mechanism for posting comments. And mis-representations which rarely happen are pointed out in the comments by the huge audience it has. ICH actively informs and retracts any misrepresentations if they occur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.169.127.6 (talk • contribs).

Author of "Is this a Joke" , 203.164.7.222: I have made changes to the article in question. The initial complaint featured the issues notablility and reliability. I really don't see how notability can be a problem.

"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." WP:WEB

I think the 40 citations in books distributed by Amazon covers that. Yes it links to "conspiracy theory cruftiness" administrator MONGO, but many articles are sourced from the mainstream press. Presumably, without reading, these books are all crufty by association. Just because a theory/opinion is fringe or not mainstream does not defacto make it wrong - only unpleasant, disturbing or distasteful... and maybe later, wrong. It took a long time to accept the loony idea of continental drift. If ICH is considered an unreliable third source what hope wikipedia? See also the talk page for the ICH entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia for sites that are, in my opinion, far less worthy than ICH; examples: Suprnova.org and The Register. If ICH's page should go for the reasons initially claimed then plenty more should too. Further, I find it curious that critics of ICH want to have the page removed. I note that people who don't like The Register (and there's a lot of them) are not calling for the deletion of El Reg's (?) page; rather they call for the page to be edited to have a critical rather than neutral tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr algorythm (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep At the very least ICH will have significant historical value. ICH is one of my most trusted sources of information. It is more reliable than the Main Stream Media at this time, therefore if it is removed, then everything from Fox News (Faux News) and the networks should be eliminated as well. Mark Rehl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs).

Keep I am a retired university professor, and my daily sources of national and international news are NPR, the International Herald Tribune, ICH and Truthout (an online source of articles, similar to ICH). Although ICH occasionally has links to liberal polemics (which I ignore), its great value to me is found in news stories and analyses of world events from a wide variety of journalistic sources such as AP, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Guardian, Asia Times, etc. Joseph Martos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josephmartos (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: Josephmartos (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep ICH is much more reliable and better news source then FOX News, which is listed on Wikipedia, so if you are not deleting FOX then you must keep ICH. Adnan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep Let's keep politics out of Wikipedia. Please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.73.228.120 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 72.73.228.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Delete We should not be discussing the merits of ICH per se, but the merits of the Wikipedia Article. The wikipedia article is far from neutral, listing only the merits of ICH, and none of the criticism. The Wikipedia article on ICH is also in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" with an overly extensive list of media links at the end of the article. Sort of like a "hah see, these are our sources, we are legit."12.108.61.66 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— 12.108.61.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep If there's an NPOV problem with the article it can be hashed out in discussions and fixed. I fail to see why ICH should be deleted altogether - sounds a little fishy... AND - is wikipedia going to get rid of all the websites that are less known than ICH? GNN.tv has a page, stormfront.org has a page, infowars.com has a page, alternet.org has a page.. etc. etc. Persona o 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Persona o (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

    • Comment Anon IP adress removed the SPA tag, resigned the comment as anon IP and then User:Persona o resigned it again as Persona o. Not sure why. Readding the SPA tag.

Keep As a journalist, I use ICH almost every day to find interesting, provocative and relevant facts, information and perspectives. All readers of Wikipedia should have the opportunity to learn about ICH. I do not agree with every article that ICH publishes, but I can still recognize that it is a really important information service. Keeping a Wikipedia article about ICH does not introduce "politics" into Wikipedia -- but deleting an article about ICH certainly would. Pmontague 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Pmontague (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep - In my reading, ICH meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and reliability, certainly as much as or more so than many main stream media outlets. Is the political slant of ICH the real issue for those wanting deletion? I note that Wikipedia articles exist for NewsMax and WorldNetDaily which are NOT proposed for deletion (nor should they be). Therefore the attempt to delete the article on ICH may be a politically motivated misuse of the deletion process. --Nodal Plane 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nodal Plane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


Keep "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell. And a revolutionary act needs to be into Wikipedia. Stop the censure by criminal neo cons --Neymare 17:56, 31 August 2006 (From France) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep - encyclopaedia worth --217.83.122.92 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 217.83.122.92 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Wikipedia is no place for a revolution, nor (I realize now) is it a place for deleting viewpoints we don't agree with. I retract my previous opinion of delete in favor of Keep, but edit to better reflect the neutrality standards of Wikipedia12.108.61.66 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 12.108.61.66 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Delete - per nom. Also note the following entry on the website: "Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views." which links to this page. Nice, eh? Crockspot 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have provided references for orignial articles created by multiple notable persons (notable enough to have their own article) for this specific site. This should render void all above claims of non-notability.--Striver 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that's not what the nomination is about. It's about the notability of the site, not people mentioned on the site. Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT Morton devonshire 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with your interpretation, but in either case, i have added external sites linking to it, like Counterpunch and CSM.--Striver 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What, not Prisonplanet.com? Morton devonshire 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about that. Didn't stumble on any links on my google search. --Striver 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipeida isn't a reliable source for notability. My own opnion (which is about as valuable as Wikipedia's) is that they would fail the objective notability test as I don't see many awards or reviews of their authored works that are relevant to ICH. Whether they would survive an AfD popularity test is a different quesiton. As you see here, we have a lot of motivated one time accounts. For example, Roberts is notable in his own right but his sole contributions to ICH do not necessarily make them notable (ICH carrying articles that are published elsewhere does not make ICH notable). --Tbeatty 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Christian Science Monitor CounterPunch are very notable in themselves, they have nothing to do with wikipedia. And George Galloway, Ray McGovern and John Pilger also very notable on their own. --Striver 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Christian Science Monitor hyperlink mentioned, and it says nothing about ICH. Morton devonshire 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Look again. --Striver 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I encourage everyone to have a look. Morton devonshire 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't spot it either. There is a link to an article on ICH but no actual information about the site. Is the link what we should consider a "non-trivial published work" about the site? The site does not appear to be the subject of the article at all. WP:WEB explicitly says trivial coverage such as reporting the internet address do no impart notability. Weregerbil 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I reworded it to reflect that. --Striver 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Reworded trivial coverage still doesn't bring it towards WP:WEB. Weregerbil 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree if i also could pretend that it was the single claim of notability the article makes. In any case WP:WEB is just a guidline.--Striver 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to pretend anything. Let's discuss it directly without pretending! Does the article pass WP:WEB? Weregerbil 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It could be argued that it does not in the current form, but it irrelevant to the afd, since it is a mere guidling, intended to help, and not a wikipedia policy. A wikipedia policy would for example be Notability, and this site hosts original material from multiple Notable persons. And that is enough in my view, and the view of the people voting "keep" --Striver 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. Notability guidelines for web sites are irrelevant when notability of web sites is discussed?? Weregerbil 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, poor wording, i meant "not critical". --Striver 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment; Look at all the sockpuppetry! Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think these are technically called meatpuppets. But it is pretty amazing. I think half of them think we are voting to remove ICH from the Web. --Tbeatty 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Serious editorial content. Looks fine to me. Yakuman 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • New user

Keep - There is no coherent case against the retention of ICH in Wikipedia. The charges contained in the first entry above and several supporting entries are without any credible foundation in fact. The supporting arguments are spurious for they rely entirely on the unsound presuppositions contained in the original indictment - ie. the first entry. On its face, ICH meets the criteria cited in the original charge - WP:WEB, WP:NOT and WP:RS. This case should be closed as it has no merit, whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by alchemistoxford (talk • contribs).

  • Keep - The site is non-trivial and deserves a page. Nunquam Dormio 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly notable, and the nomination seems motivated by political disagreement with its content. If that were a valid criteria for deletion, most of Wikipedia would cease to exist. Redxiv 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Some external conspiracy theory sites and opinion pieces appear to have links to the site but a link doesn't constitute being the subject of multiple non-trivial independent published works. Weregerbil 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mirror Vax 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Charles Matthews 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Above user is an ArbCom member. --Striver 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep--Suleyman Habeeb 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even if the outcome of this discussion is keep, this article needs a complete overhall - it now reads like an advertisement at best. GabrielF 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jayjg. Evolver of Borg 08:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google counts 7,340 sites above the PR 3 threshold linking to ICH. Among the first 200 entries I checked cursorily there wasn't a single one that struck me as noteworthy, just minor blogs and conspiracy/opinion sites. The nom is correct about ICH not meeting WP:WEBs requirements. ICH is a "one man effort" indeed and needs more time to get noteworthy. btw: ICH means "I" and "ego" in German... :-) --tickle me 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
nypost.com give 21 100 hits. 1/3 of the New York Post is more than enough. --Striver 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yet another notable original writer added: Wayne Madsen--Striver 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides valuable perspective on the Far Right. StaticElectric 20:27, 2 September 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.
  • Keep. I read lots of newspapers on line. Most of them give a very one sided view of the news. There are websites like ICH who publish a different view eg. Democracy now. And it is in Wikipedia. So I cannot understand why all this rubbish is about. Is it political agenda to take away our freedom of information? Or is it personal attack against some one who is trying to bring some sanity into the media? It will be tragic if this entry is deleted for all of us who believe in free information. Alwaysshariff 15:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moneysavingexpert.com

This article was deleted after the first AfD decided it was spam, then rewritten in user space and after a deletion review restored into the article space. The questions for this round are then: 1. Does this article conform with WP:NPOV now, and 2. Is the company itself notable? Procedural listing, so I abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Generates quite a bit of hits on Google and has a pretty good Alexa ranking. The creator of the website is a well-known journalist, as well. It also has been written about in newspaper sources, which passes WP:WEB. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The website is notable, and easily meets WP:WEB as the subject of several third party "works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles" and "has won a well known and independent award". The Alexa rating is about 3,000. (All referenced in the article.) I abstain on the NPOV issue. Mr Stephen 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. It's referenced well enough, and seems to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, meets WP:WEB guideline on multiple counts. RFerreira 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this article really NOPV? I have looked at the article and looked at the website it describes. The text in the article seems to closely reflect the text that the website uses to promote itself. Furthermore, though it is not mentioned in the article, the website described in the article is apparently a for-profit website. External links that consumers are encouraged to click on to see recommendations of how to save money, result in the website itself receiving money from the commercial websites that the consumer links to. I am concerned that this article is in effect advertising a for-profit website. I think we should look into this more carefully before deciding. Dendennis 21:35, 29 August 2006
    • 'Comment. The exact same could be said about any notable for-profit website. RFerreira 06:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Comment (from article contributer). The text of the article does closely reflect the the text the site uses to promote itself, but how else could the article be done and properly reference sources? If you look at newspaper reviews and mentions (e.g. here or search for it here) of the site then possibly you may be able to find more NPoV reviews, but from what I can see newspapers (being lazy) just seem to reprint information from press releases or just lift text directly from the site themselves. I could put up things I find negative about the site, but without finding someone in print who agrees to quote, it would be my personal review. It does say in the info box that the site is commercial and more could be said on this, but I didn't see any Wikipedia articles mentioning how other sites were funded and I wondered how appropriate it was. I'll would gladly write a whole section on this right now, but I'm reluctant to change the article during a review Aldaden 08:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Info on how site funded available here Aldaden 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • ... which is already in the article as reference 4 (atm), titled " Moneysavingexpert - How this site is financed". Mr Stephen 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems to meet WP:WEB on many counts. Let me declare an interest though, I came to Wiki after reading one of Martin Lewis's blogs recently and am a regular user and fan of the site, which is a huge vast resource of help to many people; and widely acclaimed as such in the UK. It's interesting to compare it to similar UK money sites. We have an entry for Moneysupermarket (Alexa rank 5414 compared to MoneySavingExpert 3083) and even Housepricecrash (Alexa rank 15,000). This site even has a motion in the UK House of Commons supporting its work. As for the finances, I've just been reading through it and can't see any conflict. Having read the linked source on the subject it seemed clear to me that this site is 'ethical stance with the principles of being free to use with no advertisements[3], independent, unbiased and journalistic in all its research and money-saving articles' whilst at the same time commercial (as noted in the info box). Perhaps its also worth us all having perspective we're on Wiki, this article can be changed and amended we're really talking about whether the entry is worthy and its clear to me it is. Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.79.78 (talk • contribs) .
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.


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 :Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman). WinHunter (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheVanguard.Org

The page is primarily promoting and advertising and is almost completely unverifiable. DoctorSqueak 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Mars-Sekhmet, UABVulcan, and Jawed3 all make good points. Wiki is not the right place for political disagreements. Groups like TheVanguard.org, Move-On, NOW, ATR, etc. are all important players in America's democratic process. TheVanguard.org has influential board members and a high profile president, plus the article is thoroughly referenced. Turkey2020 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep UABVulcan is right. Disagreements with an organization are not grounds for its removal from Wiki. It's certainly no more "promotional" than the Move-On, NOW, or Act Up articles. The article is accurate, well-referenced, and does not resort to puffery. Mars-Sekhmet 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep The continued character assassination using wiki as a political POV vehicle is appalling. Besides, this article is a NPOV entry which states merely the facts about a political organization. As such, my vote is to keep. UABVulcan 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep This vote is just part of the general attack on Rod Martin. That was settled on his article, and it's time to settle it here. Jawed3 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep For all the reasons just stated in my comment below, I think this article should be here (which is why I wrote it in the first place). Everyone knows about the big names like Dobson and Kennedy and Falwell, but they need to know who else is in the room when Rove is doing his thing. These people have access, they are privy to things the rest of us are not, and everyone has a right to know that. And whoever's trying to cover it up is doing everyone a real disservice. Maybe they're stooges for the RNC. DelosHarriman 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep There is nothing in this article which makes any special claims about the group. However, the group is clearly relevant, in that it is a participating member of the Arlington Group[8], an tight little organization of pro-family groups led by people like Jim Dobson and D. James Kennedy which gets regular private briefings at the White House and has gotten a lot of negative press for its inside leaks from Karl Rove.[9][10] It seems obvious to me that the public would want to know who these people are and (horrors!) even what they say about themselves. Unless you're trying to cover this sort of thing up.... Samdmd 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Arlington Group is composed of at least 75 member groups. If you actually look at the groups you cannot seriously argue that all 75 of them are notable.
Over half of the Arlington Group's member organizations are actually part of another Arlington Group member organization (e.g., there are at least three on the list which are headed by D. James Kennedy, at least ten headed by James Dobson). The number of principles in the room is reputed to be about thirty; and they have constant access to Rove, Bush, etc. If that's not notable (especially to the majority of Americans who don't like George Bush and Karl Rove), I'd like to know what is. I think all of this should be known, and I think you're engaging in a cover-up. DelosHarriman 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think that Rod Martin has constant access to Rove or Bush, it is hard to know what to respond except that your Rod Martin boosterism is getting in the way of your analytical skills.
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 919,635. --Xyzzyplugh 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Southern Poverty Law Center's been around forever and has an Alexa ranking of 101,229. The National Urban League is huge and has an Alexa ranking of 435,884 (which is about what TheVanguard.Org's was this week). Americans for Tax Reform is widely considered one of the most influential lobbying groups in America: its Alexa ranking is 573,517. So what? Samdmd 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The southern povery law center, the national urban league, and americans for tax reform are organizations which happen to have websites, so alexa ranking would not be terribly important in determining their notability. Alexa ranking is useful for helping to determine the notability of something that is a website. --Xyzzyplugh 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Alexa ranking just hit 370,380, with a one week ranking much higher. Pretty big jump (on a 3 month moving average) since your comment mere days ago. Puts them ahead of most major conservative groups in the country too. Oops for you. DelosHarriman 18:08, 4 September 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.


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. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reach Out

Webcruft, Alexa ranking 487,984. Punkmorten 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, unless I am missing something, it does not even assert notability. A clear promotional effort for a nonnotable website. Uucp 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - does read as a promo but they are a serious organisation for youth mental health. I've heard them repeatedly covered on non-commercial TripleJ radio, and heard them discussed favourably (radio again) by the South Australian minister of health. At the worst tag it for importance + references and look back in a month or so. Defininately not a speedy candidate - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or, rather, revert back to the article I wrote about the Four Tops LP of this name (that, or actually make a proper move to the Reach Out (album) namespace. Whoever created this article didn't even bother to cleanup the links to the article). Wikipedia is not a web directory, not even for a non-profit website. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable Australian mental health organisation, needs rewriting though. --Canley 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the title should be moved to Reach Out! with an exclamation mark, that's the official name. --Canley 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable enough for me. In the same ilk as organisations such as Beyondblue. - Longhair 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Canley, Longhair. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Inspire Foundation, which runs the website and a couple of other projects, might be worthy of an article, but the website in of itself is not sufficiently notable. Zaxem 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Major support organisation in Australia. It is not a website [it HAS one, but is not focused around the website] so Alexa ranking is irrelevant. -- Chuq 04:46, 6 September 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.


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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compete Toolbar

Advertisement for a non-notable product. "Complete Toolbar" gets 623 g-hits (up from 582 when I added a prod tag a few days ago). Most are unrelated. BigDT 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Psst... that's "Compete" without an l. JIP | Talk 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well ... it's not a notable product either ;) BigDT 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — non notable - 303 hits from Google atm Deon555talkReview 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - even fewer hits when you remove Wikipedia from the search. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • comment In fact, if you remove forums and blogs as well and omit related results, all you're left with is a handful of plugin-download websites... Make of this what you will... LinaMishima 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable product. Bigtop 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep? - Technorati Links - from many top-100 blogs All stats/blog posts are based on toolbar. Just going through their Technorati link list - very recently linked by many top-100 blogs - list includes John Battelle, Micropersuasion, Read/Writeweb, etc. Appears to be growing in notability rapidly 10:31, 27 August 2006 (EST)
    • reply whilst I support using the blogshere to support keeping certain articles, these tend to be social ones that have no hope of otherwise breaking out from the blogsphere and yet are famous throughout it. Programs and plugins, however, can be reliably referenced by a review within an industry magazine, which means we should not rely on weak sources. Thought you'd like an explaination to understand my voting. LinaMishima 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete software doesn't appear to be notable. talk to JD wants e-mail 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, but mainly WP:NOTE. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the following reasons:

1. Article is like an advertisement. 2. It is not notable yet. 3. Few results when you don't include the Wikipedia page as part of the search. --TheM62Manchester 10:32, 28 August 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.


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. Sango123 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scoopasia

This appears to be an article about a website that furnishes services to public relations professionals who work primarily in the Asian and Pacific Rim regions. Presently, the language hardly reflects a neutral viewpoint: it uses promotional language to redirect encyclopedia users to the services the site offers. If it were to be written with a neutral point of view, I believe very little more can be said about it than the summary I've written here, so the article would be a stub. Could the stub be developed into anything more substantial?

As of this writing, 28 August 2006, Google returns approximately 240 hits on the phrase 'Scoopasia'; these wholly fall into the realms of:

1. Wikipedia hits or hits on mirrors of Wikipedia, either on the article Scoopasia or on News release, which Melvinyuan had edited on 10 July 2006, furnishing a link to the Scoopasia site in the 'External Links' section. Melvinyuan is also the principle author of Scoopasia. (This external link was removed in early August; the editor who removed the link thought that it was advertising).

2. references from bloggers or individuals in link concentration sites who've noted the existence of the site but have not offered any independent views as to the site's notability

3. Pages that have since disappeared ("404")

4. Echoed content from scoopasia itself.

No evidence of awards granted to the site has been found by me, nor are well known and independent parties distributing Scoopasia content as noteworthy and useful material.

This is not to say that Scoopasia doesn't serve its community, but I conclude that it does not do so in a noteworthy fashion that has caught the attention of neutral observers. The article, having as its topic a (presumed) notewothy website, fails the policy for such: Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my opinion. Let the discussion begin. Gosgood 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • weak keep obviously needs cleanup, but potentially notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notablity. Zaxem 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, currently blatant advertisement. Carson 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 7 September 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.


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. Punkmorten 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xavier's corner

Non-notable blog with no assertion of notability TJ Spyke 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Wiki is not a chat forum, and does not promote them--Anthony.bradbury 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You fools, this it was not written as a blog or chat forum. It was vandalized by other people.--Nightshiver00 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a blog. Also seems somebody here is violating WP:NPA, you might want to provide diffs for that, as I'm not seeing it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just found this while cleaning up YouTube videos. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 2 September 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.


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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perversefixation

A website that (according to previous edits of this page) is not yet up and running - but is already the subject of a lawsuit by SuicideGirls.com. May be notable; nominated for speedy, deleted (by me) and recreated - but on second thought I'd rather put it to the community. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. --Rory096 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not only fails WP:WEB, but acts as little more than spam for other websites. Also, the lawsuit is apparently against an invdividual, not the website. Resolute 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NOT a crystal ball (the website will not be up until October), and neither WP:WEB nor WP:CORP cover this: most ghits are self-promotional. --Daniel Olsen 03:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. JIP | Talk 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- aforementioned reasons. --Schulte 12:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons upon reasons already mentioned. ReverendG 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a crystal ball. Does not meet WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per bd2412. Good catch. RFerreira 07:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone! -Ladybirdintheuk 11:52, 29 August 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.
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. —Mets501 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W.bloggar

A freeware application. Kept by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/W.bloggar, no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar. Both predate WP:SOFTWARE. There is no assertion of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no evidence of non-trivial external coverage, and the homepage is now unavailable due to suspension of the account. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 19:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not delete. The w.bloggar site is back up and the software is freely available once again. 04 September 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.73.173 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per WP:V; no reputable, reliable sources provided. This article has had 20 months to be properly cited: if it hasn't happened yet, it probably won't. --Satori Son 03:38, 5 September 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.


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 Deville (Talk) 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogtronix

Around 200 unique Googles, every instance of the name Blogtronix is weblinked, release 1.0 in August, no external sources, no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. Article is the work of GeorgeAthannassov (talk • contribs), a person of that (unusual) name is the COO of Blogtronix. User's contributions are restricted to adding and puffing Blogtronix. Pretty fair evidence of meeting WP:SPAM. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question and remark from George,

    What do I need to change so the Blogtronix article and company info stays in Wikipedia structure. We are a legidimate coprorate structure in US. If the weblinkage is a problem - I would immeaditely remove it

  • George: I did put the article. I removed the web links to Blogtronix website.
  • George: Thank you for the remarks. Can we consider these as references:
  • George again: another article mentioning Blogtronix in BusinessWeek:
  • Delete per nom. Still spam--Anthony.bradbury 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • From George: Anthony, please indicate what I need to change so it is not considered as a spam. What is it different than the article for Movable Type? open the movable type article and tell me what is different! I will chaneg what I have to to have Blogtronix included in Wikipedia but you guys are not helping here, I know you are editors, not support center but the guidlines are not clear what i need to remove especially when I have the example with Movable type. They are in the same position we are in!
  • George: I edited the article additionaly - please check and advise.
    • Honestly speaking: There is no hope for your article at this point. It will be deleted. Change your company and your software first, before considering whether they deserve a Wikipedia article. Get mentioned on Forbes 500, become a Dow Jones companent stock, and get your software featured (not just mentioned in passing) in 5 newspapers first, and we might reconsider. Nothing's wrong with the article, it's the company (and the software) that isn't notable enough for an article at this stage. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; blatant vanispamcruftisement. Ryūlóng 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • George: What is "blatant" here? Does this mean you have double standards? Movable type can be included together with SixApart and Blogtronix can not. What is different in the two articles - none of the editors here can not point out. Did you check the latest update I just did? Compare it wtih Movable type and tell me where is the difference
    • Comment As it stands, this article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. To have a shot at being kept, you'd have to rewrite it to be an objective analysis of the company. As it stands, my vote will be Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • George: OK, I Understand. Thank you. I will take out some of the information that can be considered as an advertisement immediately.
  • George: I changed the article again. Danny, can you check it again. Awyong Jeffrey - I think your statement is a little incorrect. Being first in more than one aspects should allow us to be included in Wikipedia. Plus we do have way more than 5 articles about us in newspapers. We can not become Forbes or Fortune 500 company in 18 months but we are aiming there. There is nothing wrong with our software or company type - you do not know the Corporate Blogging software industry to state that We can not be included because we are nobody. I am honestly seeking advise how we can be inclued in wikipedia,i am not arguing with the editors. I need advise what to do as I am certain my opinion is valid as well as the infromation for Blogtronix which should reside in Wikipedia
  • another comment - TechCrunch http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/08/18/profile-blogtronix/ Plus the google results are over 162,000 !
  • Another one - Blogtronix is BlogOn Social Media Innovator: http://www.blogonevent.com/blogon2005/exhibitors/
  • The Latest Conference Office 2.0 Blogtronix is Key speaker company and Sponsor http://www.office20con.com/sponsors.html http://www.office20con.com/speakers.html
  • This is Vassil Mladjov,Vassil mladjov founder and ceo of Blogtronix. One thing I don't understand here is what are you guys talking about. Blogtronix is a company incorporated in the US, CA in Aug 2005. We just like, SocialText, SixApart, WordPress, JotSpot and many others make web 2.0 software and services. Why are any of our competitors here in Wikipedia and we can't be here? You guys have many articles about software companies for wikis and blogging Blog software, we are just one of these companies. Category:Proprietary wiki software

    So, if any of these companies are here, I do think that we should be here well. We will edit the info to a minimum, so it does not look like any commercial ad, but people are looking for us on the internet as our solutions is a best of breed for enterprises at the moment. (these are just not my words).

    Furthermore, according to your guidelines WP:SOFTWARE about software, it states that: "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden"

    More references about Blogtronix: Forrester Research http://www.forrester.com Official Corporate Blogging Reasearch papers by Forrester Research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vassko (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28 01:32:43 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia is not a business directory for everyone, you and your competitors, to get a listing in, or for "people looking for us on the Internet" to look you up in. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If you want a directory for people to look you up in, get thee to Yellowikis! Our goal here is to write an encyclopaedia. We only retain articles on companies that satisfy certain criteria. If you want to have an article on a company, you must cite sources to show that it satisfies those criteria. You haven't cited a single non-trivial article, from a reliable source, about the company that isn't a straight rehash of a press release or corporate autobiography. Some of the web pages don't even mention the company at all. Uncle G 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

George: Thank you Uncle G. I guess, we will get back to Wikipedia in a couple of months. BTW; All sites that are posted here have our company name on them and believe me the Report on Corporate Blogging from Forrester Research is quite non-trivial, reliable and independent source. There should not be a reason for Wikipedia editors to deal with our inclusion in such a manner when SixApart, iUpload, WordPress and JotSpot are listed here. Anyway - we will wait and will deal with this at a later date. I read very carefully what should be a reliable source and besides the fact that Mars is a planet and the Wikipedia editors have a DELETE button - i could not get any other or more information. I will really get back to wikipedia when the content we can put about Blogtornix is verifiable and understandable enough for the very general public that needs to be told that Mars is not only a chocolate bar but it is actually a planet!

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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-pen.com

nn website. Internet 00 02:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails all tests. Reads like spam. wikipediatrix 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A non-notable website as per WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Finally, yet another website article where the author doesn't include an external links section containing the URL of the website in question!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no alexa rank and fails WP:WEB.--Jersey Devil 08:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Very obscure, absolutely not notable. Pure spam. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, yet another website vanity article. Note how it lists individual forum members. JIP | Talk 14:47, 27 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Web Directory

Advertisement article for a non-notable web directory. Google hits for (link:www.fairwebdirectory.com) = 386. Alexa traffic ranking = 66,359. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:54, 27 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eka's portal

nn websites. Hol2006 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Rather disgusting non notable fetish site, certainly not famous like goatse. Link to related fetishes on wikipedia discovers uncited sources all over. Who wants to bet this is a practical joke ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also advertising, as writer indicates this is to announce their new URL after being deleted by Yahoo. WP is not a web directory, and the fact the writer is Ekamei suggests vanity. Alexa ranking is down about 151,000, and Google shows only 35 distinct Ghits out of only 2500 for "eka's portal". Tychocat 11:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I smell pork. Delete per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above --Nigel (Talk) 12:55, 29 August 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.


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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyFreeImplants

Website that does not seem to meet WP:WEB in terms of notability. Some mentioning of site elsewhere, relatively low google results, -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , seems to me that this is a legitimate article. I've heard about this company twice on the radio, and was present at Erotica-LA for the giveaway and as such I thought it would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. In full disclosure I am a user of the website and have contributed to several women on the website. I considered adding this article before, but it wasn't until the website was featured on the BBC story (cited in the article) that I felt it was worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Jahgok 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The above is the creator of the article, whose only edits to Wikipedia are related to the subject at hand. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a true statement. We all have to start somewhere, and I chose to start on an area I am familiar with that was not yet covered. Please do not bite the newcomers. Jahgok 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: WP:BITE does not apply to objective statements of fact that are in line with AfD etiquette. --Kinu t/c 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence that site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Doesn't a BBC news special about the topic make it meet WP:WEB? After some further digging I've found that the topic is also featured in an upcoming book Beauty Junkies: Inside Our $15 Billion Obsession With Cosmetic Surgery by Alex Kuczynski an author for The New York Times. The book has not yet been released however. Jahgok 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: To me, it's dependent on one's personal definition of "non-trivial" mentions per WP:RS and WP:WEB, about the site itself and not just the topics of breast enhancement, cyberbegging, etc. The blurb about the BBC Three show doesn't mention the site at all, just the breast enhancement market in general, and there's no indication (without watching it or reading a transcript) that it's mentioned in a more than passing fashion on the program itself. Likewise, the Houston Press article is more about cyberbegging in general, and mentions the site in a vague "here are some sites we found" context rather than truly being "about" it. The AVN thing is also just an ad for some promotion that mentions the site in a context of a giveaway. I can't speak to the reliability of Vyuz as a news source, however. Of course, other editors' opinions may vary, so I welcome their input as well, in terms of possibly changing my recommendation. --Kinu t/c 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Thanks for clearing up your POV Kinu. I'm thinking that perhaps this audio clip from The Adam Carolla Show may offer some extra evidence as to the legitimacy of the article. His show is syndicated in 11 markets and is part of CBS Radio. No small potatoes! :) Jahgok 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Has 3 referenced noteworthy news articles (BBC included). MECU≈talk 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Did you even look at the references? They have nothing to do with the article's subject, as mentioned above. --Kinu t/c 01:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment As mentioned above, I have a user account on the MyFreeImplants website, and I can attest to the fact that the BBC show mentioned the website in the TV program. The program aired yesterday (Tuesday, August 29, 2006) and there was a rush of new female signups on the website, probably a good 90 new girls all from the UK who saw the show. Jahgok 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment In addition, although the BBC website doesn't specifically mention the website by name, here is the reference to it:

        Laura Taylor has wanted a boob job ever since she was 14. She's so desperate to change her breasts she’s logged on to an innovative website that allows men to donate money to women to help them fund a boob job.

        It is my opinion this is an obvious reference to MyFreeImplants. There are no other websites like this to my knowledge. Jahgok 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Unfortunately, a "possible" reference such as the one you mention doesn't count as a reliable source, in my opinion. Per WP:WEB, the evidence must be non-trivial (i.e., actually and incontrovertibly about the site, most definitely by name), which in this case, it doesn't seem to be without adding one's own opinion. --Kinu t/c 05:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kinu t/c 05:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a show of good faith, I've relisted this discussion to determine what other editors think, based on the information presented above. --Kinu t/c 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Weak Keep. It goes over things well, and plastic surgery is notable, especially breast implants, which are really their own cottage industry. It is advertisement-esque, but it's not badly written for an AfD article, and I'll give it a chance. For now.-Kmaguir1 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Breast implants are clearly an encyclopedic topic. But you admit that this article reads like an advertisement, which means this is WP:SPAM, in your opinion? Please clarify. --Kinu t/c 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Alexa gives a ranking around 122,000 for the site, and the average traffic has dropped around 50% in the last 3 months. I think this got some media notice, but is now rapidly fading away. Brianyoumans 06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think you will see this rebound upon the next Alexa update. Last night August 30, 2006 Jay Leno mentioned the website during his monologue on The Tonight Show and I've sent an email to the site owner who confirms this, I am still looking for a transcript or video of the show for proof. Jahgok 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Just as I suspected, check out the spike in the most recent Alexa graph seems as if public interest is growing. Jahgok 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Also, I've found this recap of the BBC program from someone that watched the show. Jahgok 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - seems notable and has decent references. --mathewguiver 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu, until more relevant press coverage can be cited. bikeable (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. wikipediatrix 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite references, Alexa rankings and low Google hits indicate this was a very low-profile fad which never made it into the public consciousness. -Elmer Clark 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So where is the wiki page that outlines the minimum requirements for Alexa and Google rankings? Is there a quantitative value that can be derived from using these servics that then corresponds to a thumbs-up or thumbs-down for a wiki inclusion? And why are those two companies chosen as the barometer? Or is is mearly a persons opinion based on those services? One would easily assume that a website with poor search engine optimization would be penalized on wikipedia! And not based purely on the facts realted to said website, but based on the skill level of the web developer for the website. Jahgok 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:SET should answer your questions about search engine tests. Dancter 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The video from The Tonight Show with Jay Leno is now available on iTunes and a clip that mentions the topic of this article is available on Google Video. Jay doesn't specifically mention the name of the website, but there is only one Los Angeles based website that gives away free breast implants in this manner, so the reference is obviously in regards to MyFreeImplants. Jahgok 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A brief, 15-second mention on a Leno monologue, which doesn't even mention the site name, and isn't really even about the site but a tongue-in-cheek reference (to paraphrase) to lending a helping hand or two, hardly seems to satisfy WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Elmer Clark. Zaxem 06:41, 9 September 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mingleville

Delete per WP:WEB, deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Even if it stays, this seems to be an article which could attract all manner of jokers, so it'd need to be watched carefully. BigHaz 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT a free host.--Jersey Devil 07:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as prodder. MER-C 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like complete nonsense Ben 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 22:13, 27 August 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.


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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expatica

This is simply a vanity page - it appears to be a commercial company promoting its own activities and using Wikipedia as a means to raise its profile through an external link. DrDaveHPP 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a notable website in Alexa's top 20,000 and a useful source of English language news for expats. Its news stories regularly appear on Google News searches. It is also referenced by other news media; here and here as examples. --RMHED 19:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RMHED, reasonable Alexa ranking. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 27 August 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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Rock Hall

Non notable website, prod removed without improvement Nuttah68 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. If they had a track record of accurate predictions, it'd be different, but I don't think they've been around long enough. SliceNYC 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per SliceNYC. Zaxem 05:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:06, 3 September 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.


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 Keep. Deville (Talk) 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kidsreads.com

spam. Coca666 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep Coca666 seems to be a single purpose account. 95,000 google hits for kidsreads.com. Irongargoyle 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the nominator is a {{SPA}}{{spa}}, the article currently has nothing that asserts notability per WP:WEB. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I see your point, although just so you know, the template you gave designates the user as a Spaniard. Irongargoyle 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A ten year old website with lots of google hits. I agree that the article needs work though. Dina 22:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes it is a short article and yes it is about about a website and yes most websites are deleted but this is one of the more notable ones. Just do a Google search. Kitia 22:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Several google queries with kidsread, and an alexa ranking.
  • Keep The article undoubtedly needs work to help establish the notability it has received from libraries and educators across the U.S. ju66l3r 23:27, 26 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! ETC

[Check Google hits] basically one unique hit, the site itself, and the rest are irrelevant. Failing WP:WEB and WP:V since the only real source is the site itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. For future reference, I would prod pages about non-notable websites like these. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I know, but check the username: YugiohETC (talk • contribs). In my experience, someone that goes out of the way to make an account for spamming a site won't hesitate to wipe away prods. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Buy an ad. Aplomado talk 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I play Delete in attack mode. Danny Lilithborne 02:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, WP:SPAM, apparently not even notable in the Yu-Gi-Oh! fanverse. --Kinu t/c 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, as per above. --Reaper X 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a billboard. --physicq210 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete what an unnoteable website! - Blood red sandman 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sorry, this was kind of a trial thing. I would like if someone could inform me more about this though, as I wanted to make one for ETC like Pojo has one. could someone inform me what I should follow, as I'm new to Wikipedia.! - User:YugiohETC 12:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete To answer User:YugiohETC's question, we do not put articles up for Web pages such as the one in the said article. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • EXTREME delete as this website sucks poop. --Nintendude message 00:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 10:48, 29 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dysartes

This is an article written about the Dysartes website by one of the founders of said website (who is referenced in the article). Not only is that methodology questionable, the website is no more notable than any other 40K fansite or community. Through reading the article, the article serves only to advertise a gaming club, get some people's handles out to the public (also advertising) and advertise a store website. All of these are prohibited by WP policy. MSJapan 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and send it to the warp to be eaten by the chaos gods. I'm a member of this fandom, and I even I recognize it as blatant NN spamcruft. Irongargoyle 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, delete away I say. Localzuk (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: non notable, advertising --Pak21 17:42, 28 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DillonsMP3 Source

Contested prod. WP:WEB, self-promotion, Alexa rank is 969,691 VoiceOfReason 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 15:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per both. AdamBiswanger1 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Right now, fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 16:11, 26 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texags.com

WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB. BBtec 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for all the above -- Whpq 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. Reads like semicoherent WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nuttah68 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Put down the beer bong and do some homework. --Xrblsnggt 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete totally useless to the project - Burn It - Blood red sandman 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously, as incoherent nonsense, although it should be noted that (1) the claim about being the first to expose the Bomar thing is actually true - it was published on TexAgs.com 8 months ago and (2) TexAgs.com is very well known in the college football community and this deletion should be without prejudice. A well-written and sourced article on TexAgs.com would be very much appropriate. BigDT 19:05, 28 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingwood Underground

NN local forum (doesn't even tell us where Kingwood is). Daniel Case 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Kingwood Texas is about 15 miles north of Houston on Highway 59—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.241.151.70 (talk • contribs).

OK, but the forum fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, per CSD A7. Club with no notability asserted. Irongargoyle 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, no evidence at all that this site meets WP:WEB. Alexa rank: 423,183. --Kinu t/c 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless author gives justification on how it survives notability. No speedy criteria available. ColourBurst 13:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local and non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:21, 26 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casio Kingdom

Advertisement for non-notable website that makes no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. Successfully prodded, but re-created. Does not qualify for CSD G4. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Leuko 05:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence that this site meets WP:WEB. Article also appears to have been created by an author whose username is the same as that of the creator of the site, which makes it WP:VANITY as well. --Kinu t/c 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Casio Kingdom hosts all of my games/programs which I personally created. It's also listed on Casio Education Australia. It's part of the history of calculator gaming.Seantan 05:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)-- article's creator Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Please take a note at our notability guidelines for websites which discuss which websites are notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Has this website been given previous coverage by reliable sources, e.g. widely published newspaper or magazine? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No it hasn't been, but I thought being on a Casio Education website would give it some credit. Also, regarding the Vanity claim, my article is purely informative. It doesn't give any praise to my site at all.Seantan 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    You made an article with the aim of giving your site publicity - which is the intent of a vanity article. We'd prefer website owners not to write about their own sites at all. If it's that interesting, someone else will write an article about it. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Nuttah68 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Jap9c 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mitaphane talk 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seantan, I think your efforts would be better spent improving the article for the Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS rather than self promotion. For example, a section on programming could be added(this is obviously something you know about), or the addition of your website link in Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS's external links section. The TI-89 has a small community around programming for the calculator, the same seems to be the case for the CFX-9850. Mitaphane talk 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks Mitaphane. I will do so. I would still like to keep my article though 202.89.180.222 04:51, 27 August ~~2006 (UTC)
Comment: Your article? Please see WP:OWN Leuko 05:56, 27 August 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.


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 Keep per DRV.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenWetWare

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through this AfD in light of new evidence. Please consult the DRV for this evidence before commenting here. This matter is submitted for new consideration to AfD. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per DRV. 1ne 23:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per DRV. Skosuri 23:10, 27 August 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.


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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistula

At first, this seemed like just another band vanity page, and after the creator didn't respond to my comments on their talk page, I speedied it. However, the creator left some comments on my talk page, and I now believe that this article could actually stay on Wikipedia. I'm putting it up for AFD, but abstaining from voting since I'm a bit ambiguous on this. I'll let you guys decide. - ulayiti (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP I believe this article should stay on Wikipedia for the following reasons: 1. This is not a vanity or promotional page for the band. 2. This article provides information about the first virtual/concept band in the Philippines and their achievements. 3. It focuses on a band that is pioneering a new genre in the Philippine music scene. 4. Mistula gives a glimpse of the current innovations that impact the Philippine rock scene. 5. This supports the Wikipedia article virtual band, where Mistula was used as an example. --Webmessiah 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah
  • Weak keep appears to have received attention from MTV Philippines, a google search also backs this.--Andeh 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As Webmessiah stated, Mistula is the first virtual band in the Philippines, and they are indeed pioneering a new genre in the local music scene. Their music says a lot about the Filipino faith and culture. Not only are they well-known in the Philippines, but are also known internationally due to the fact that they web-based and accessible to everyone. Silentaria 16:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Info is accurate, support can be backed up from mentioned sources (MTV Philippines, Myx, Pinoy Radio, Rakista, Philmusic). Google search displays snippets of band info, this article collects and sums up everything and therefore helpful to both old and new followers of the band and the genre they have created --Puppet Prophet 18:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Puppet Prophet
  • Keep especially per Webmessiah #5 above. And seems notable enough. Dina 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Webmessiah's five reasons. Plus it has placed in international competitions. GBYork 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as Mistula is part of the Wikipedia entry for Pinoy rock
  • Keep This is a valid band page, plus it forms a necessary part of the Virtual Band article. --JB Adder | Talk 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is also a great reference on the influence of the web and how the band has used this to reach an international audience. It also links in with Super Dollfie, Ball-jointed doll Cresh24 15:02, 30 August 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.


[edit] Current debates

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. Punkmorten 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duel Class

Prodded by User:Fram "Non notable webcomic, perhaps recreate the article when the graphic novel has been published by a reputable publisher, has received some award, and/or has had reviews by major independent magazines}". Might benefit from more discussion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of webcomics-related deletions. —freak(talk) 21:32, Sep. 27, 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete NN webcomiccruft. Anomo 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete another nn webcomic. Eusebeus 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No independent sources. Fails WP:WEB. Wickethewok 14:56, 3 October 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.
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. Sango123 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly damned

More from my webcomic nn watchlist is Slightly damned, found here. There are 150 links for "Slightly damned" although none of these are from anything approaching a reliable source, and quite a few of them are irrelevent to the subject. This is not notable, I doubt the entire art site http://www.raizap.com/ would pass WP:WEB let alone one of its webcomics. - Hahnchen 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • del nn. `'mikka (t) 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep This comic is in the top 100 at Buzzcomic.net and it's online counter is 1500 shy of a million visits. Moridin 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already concurred on the delete nom, but I am curious where you found the rating on Buzzcomic.net. I visited the site and it appears to be a directory site, not a ratings service. Tychocat 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Buzzcomix.net definitely has rankings; they're on the front page. (This webcomic is currently 69th.) It and TopWebComics.com are (AFAICT) the main webcomics directories/ranking sites; both rank webcomics based (mainly) on number of user votes. (This has its flaws - webcomics which don't go in for that sort of thing are noticably missing - but enough webcomics take part that the rankings are still useful, as long as you understand and take into account how they work.) - makomk 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Keep noms may want to check WP:WEB rather than invent new policy or guidelines. Fails WP:WEB for lacking non-trivial third-party articles about the webcomic; I found a lot of directory listings and a couple of blogs. Google shows only 149 distinct hits out of a weak 735 general hits. Alexa traffic shows a three-month average of somewhere about 1.4 millionth. I don't believe Google is the final arbiter of notability, and Alexa admits its accuracy can be shaky when the ratings are that low, but I think it's symptomatic when a website can't even break a thousand on a general Google hits. Tychocat 06:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tychocat. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above (Doesn't meet WP:WEB) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB -- makomk 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Buzzcomix is not a reliable independent source. Ohconfucius 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Heimstern Läufer 22:03, 2 September 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.
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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salo in Space

Delete Since the previous "no consensus" AFD nomination the notability of this webcomics is still close to none. What is more, it looks like it is dead since February. I previously voted to merge/redirect, because of some cultural curiosity, but now my opinion swayed. Mukadderat 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per previous vote. --Irpen 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to my knowledge, no evidence has been presented that this topic meets WP:WEB, and the actual article certainly doesn't assert meeting that guideline, or any importance in general. I invite people to present actual evidence, but mere guesses that this might be important... maybe... should really be discounted by the closing admin. --W.marsh 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. -Kmaguir1 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. per previous votes. Alright, per reasons given by Mikka and Mzajac in previous discussions... —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a vote. In neither discussion have you given a reason. --W.marsh 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's still not really a reason, it's just a "me too" vote. Anyway every argument those two made has been countered strongly, with no response made to the challenges. Do you have evidence that the site it on is "an independent publisher" or that the comic otherwise meets WP:WEB? --W.marsh 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the comics.com.ua web site is the distributor of Salo in Space; it appears to be independent of the authors and is well known among its target audience population.--Riurik (discuss) 06:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, where's the evidence that comics.com.ua is well known? IN the previous AfD, it was mentioned that it got 400 hits per day. That's really not much... this AfD probably gets 400 hits per day. There's also no evidence that it's anything more than a free comics hosting service... which certainly wouldn't be a reason to keep if this were an english-language deal. --W.marsh 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was aware of the existance of this "Salo in Space" article since the day it was created by Mzajac and Mikkalai, and I would probably agree that in part Mzajac and Mikkalai were having fun creating it, as the name "Salo in Space" sounds intriguing for those who are aware of Ukrainian culture and humor. Had the comics be named differently, they would probably not bring that much of attention. But comics' name is a part of the comics. There likely to be other comics, which deserve to me mentioned on wikipedia, and I agree that many need to be mention more than this one. But, it still does not explain the need for deletion of this one.
  • After spending some time, which I could probably use for a better purpose, I should say that the reference to WP:WEB by people who want to delete this page is incorrect. The policy defines web content as "any content which is distributed solely on the internet". The comic series "Salo in Space" does not fail into this category. There is an annual Kiev International Festival of Cartoons "9 World", which takes place in Kiev Planetarium in spring of each year. The "Salo in Space" comics have been nominated for presentation at the festival as cartoons of 2005. The festival was open to public. Entrance fee was 2UAH. I think it's not a coincidence that the last "Salo in Space" comics have been released in February, as it coincides with the beginning of 2006 festival. --KPbIC 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If the comisc was published elsewhere "in paper", please provide a reference. Presentation at a festival does not mean "distribution". Mukadderat 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, a nomination for an international festival does mean recognition and notability. --KPbIC 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Is this festival notable? If it is "international" meaning russian-ukrainian only or anyone may come and self-nominate their work then notability is dubious. It is not, like, nomination for a prize. Mukadderat 06:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Odessaukrain 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This comics is not mentioned anythere outside of their website and this Festival. Even more - this festival failed to open this year - this mean it's not notable. Get major newspaper or news agency mention it - then it will be fine. There are mere 300 links to comics.com.ua - this mean people don't like it. --TAG 19:11, 1 September 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.
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. Sango123 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Nemesis

Another webcomic article which just chronicles what it's about without actually telling us why anyone should care. You can see the comic here although there are numerous links within the article itself. The website manages an Alexa rank of 2 million and the name of the website "black wave rising" generates 11 Google hits. You can see how notable and popular this website is just by reading the latest news post where it encourages everyone to vote every day on various topsites so it can make it into the top 100. - Hahnchen 00:24, 29 August 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.
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 Deleted and redirected to List of Care Bears.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friend Bear

I actually deleted an article with the same subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Bear (comic) without knowing that this other article existed. They're not copies of one another, and nor is it a recreation. But I already outlined the reasons for the nomination in the previous AFD, and I'll copy them here: The webcomic can be seen here, there is no Alexa rank, although the article claims that it served 20,000 unique visitors a month. Maybe that's true, but there's no external sources about the subject that I can find. That's probably because it is not a notable website or piece of work. - Hahnchen 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No google hits, the site's forum has only a couple hundred comments since 1999. A very persistent weird little page that has somehow managed to *not* become a web phenomenon and non-notable Dina 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per other AfD. I like the sample panel though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Care Bears. Danny Lilithborne 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no Alexa rank, one Google result. Bradcis 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Danny. Powers T 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Care Bears, as per Danny Lilithborne's good insight! LinaMishima 16:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the history, then recreate as a redirect to List of Care Bears per Danny Lilithborne. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect per above. Erechtheus 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rediect Erechtheus: how can you delete and redirect? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You delete the article -- so that the current stuff isn't available in the history -- then recreate it as a redirect. In point of fact, after a delete, anyone would be free to create the redirect as a purely editorial decision; thus, it would be helpful if everybody specifying "redirect" would clarify if they really thought leaving the current article available in the history was a good idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • For the record, I specified "redirect"; leaving the history is not a problem for me. Powers T 23:31, 29 August 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.
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. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of video games based on webcomics

It seems kind of rediculous to have such a narrow list around. 2 entries, and I doubt there will be many more. We don't need lists of every combination of things, since WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete Danny Lilithborne 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: into List of video games based on licensed properties. Mitaphane talk 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Silly 2-item list. One is a "real" game and one is a fan-created game which would likely not survive an AfD. Neither has even been released yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, and mention Penny Arcade on the list noted by Mitaphane above. Like Andrew, I don't think the other game would survive an AfD, and I don't think there's any reason to not discuss that game here (in a separate AfD, obviously). Penny Arcade can simply be mentioned in the "games based on licenses" article without a redirect being created, as who would ever search "list of videogames based on webcomics"? -- Kicking222 12:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, I don't think simply mentioning PA in the other article would constitute a "merge", since the only thing to merge would be the game's name and what it's based upon (and you could "merge" that from the article on the game itself). -- Kicking222 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete invitation for more articles about unfinished fan projects. (Should merge what's here as above.) — brighterorange (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, although I would remove one letter from the word "many". JIP | Talk 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough members to justify a list. These can be handled on List of video games based on licensed properties and split back out if there get to be a lot. Ace of Sevens 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a useless list. Possibly merge into List of video games based on licensed properties. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Merge proposal. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - You can throw the Penny Arcade game onto the List of video games based on licensed properties, but keep the Wotch one off it. The only reason that I've not nominated the fan game project for deletion is because there's a nice path finding example image in the article. - Hahnchen 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of video games based on licensed properties. This is not the place to discuss the notability of The Wotch game. LinaMishima 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge then delete per Ace of Sevens, until this list has more than just two entries. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:08, 30 August 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.
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 clear consensus. —Xyrael / 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loserz

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Courtesy listing, nominator did not create AfD subpage. Appears to be a non-notable webcomic. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to be comic published in HS newspaper. nn. Leuko 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Is not published anywhere other than on the internet. 02:05, 25 August 2006 (PST)

— Possible single purpose account: 198.145.76.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep Non-notable? 489 comics, active fanbase, been around for years, it's pretty damn notable if you ask me... Korinkami 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not published in a HS newspaper, is an active webcomic (although updates rather sporadically). No less notable than thousands of other Wikipedia pages. Ryan Magley 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Loserz is NOT published anywhere else, The comic is a web exclusive that's been going for almost six years. Yes the update schedule is a bit wonky but that's hardly a reason to remove it from Wiki.Foomartini 19:11, 25 August 2006 (EST)
  • Keep As per above. Established webcomic with a large archive and fanbase. -Interested2 00:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Loserz is a free unadvertised webcomic with a large fan-base, archive, and a active community of readers. -BobmanX

— Possible single purpose account: BobmanX (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep Loserz is by far one fo the best webcomics out there. saying it isn't notable is like saying Biggs and Wedge (both of which have their own Wikipedia pages) from Star wars arent notable. Also, the comic in question of being publsihed in a high school newspaper may be the one in question relating to This comic.- SpartanGhost

— Possible single purpose account: 216.183.13.53 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Delete The article does not assert notability, and it has an Alexa rating of 269,761. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The Alexa rating is largely irrelevant, Wikipedia has articles on other sites with lower ratings, such as Hell.com. -Interested2 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, please see my post much lower down the page, you'll see that the alternate URL for the loserz comic has a much higher alexa ranking. Fyver528 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Also note that the message board has linked to this article and that's causing all the keeps. --FlareNUKE 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The best argument for the notability of this comic is that it was in a High School newspaper? That it exists? and that it's good? There are no external sources, fails WP:V, fails WP:WEB. List of webcomics is just an advertising portal. - Hahnchen 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an amazingly notable webcomic, that has created an enormous fanbase of diehard fans over the 6 years it has been running! User:YouAgain
  • Keep Oh, come on. FlareNUKE put up this article for deletion possibly to get attention on the comic in question's forum. This is a very notable webcomic (no, not something in a high school newspaper) that used to be very high up in the rankings on several webcomic ranking sites, but gradually fell due to the writer/artist going on a several month long hiatus. It has now returned, but is still recovering. However, it is still a highly popular comic, and still active. It is apart of the webcomic group "the Gewd Guys", which is a group including webcomic goliaths such as Chugworth Academy. Do not delete this article simply because some sad little fan wanted attention on a forum. User: Snoogy — Possible single purpose account: User:Snoogy (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. This article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Just because something has a fan base, doesn't mean it's actually notable - take a look at all of the YouTubers we've deleted - excluding, of course, the very most notable. Srose (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wait so 40+ pages on Oral Sex, or the meaning of Dirty Sanchez or how many times a certain porn star has taken it up the ass is all fine. But a page about a Webcomic that's been going for almost six years is a no no? What the hell? The fact is that there really isn't much on Wiki that's treally important. So why axe one over another? If you're going to axe the Loserz entry then you should axe all of the Webcomic entries.

Foomartini 11:15, 28 August 2006 (EST)

  • Comment, Foomartini, if you have anything to add, can you add it to your previous vote, instead of voting a second time? Korinkami 11:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* Personally, I see no reason why the entry should be deleted. In my time reading and monitoring Wikis I've seen far more pointless stuff, Loserz has an active fan community and a long and proud history (six years in the webcomic world is a very long time). If you delete this page, then you might as well start deleting pages for other webcomics as well, which is just nonsensical

MyrmidonZero 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep* Notable or non-notable...is it such a bad thing to leave the article up? What's the worst that could happen? It's not hurting anybody. Anyway Loserz has been linked to several other webcomic sites, and has spawned at least 100+ fan art. It should be kept. shoes22 11:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* Come on people. Loserz has been running for six years and has an established fanbase. There are far stupider articles on wiki out there for you to delete. Foomartini makes a really good point. Articles about pornstars and the origin of the dildo is fine but a webcomic gets deleted? Give me a break.Gigaguyser 11:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't really see a reason to make an attempt to delete an entire page, it's really a waste of time. But I hate the self-importance of author and his fans, so I'll go along with the deleters. IrkenRed 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Notable and significant fan base. Above comment is based upon irrelevant issue of how the author/fans allegedly act, so I'd have to strongly disagree with IrkenRed. I'm not a forum contributer, so my vote upon a seperate judgement basis. Fyver528 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Edit: Important comment relating to Alexa ranking The URL that the non-notability judgement was made upon was loserzcomic.com, however http://loserz.scribblekid.org/ is still widely used and was used for much longer than loserzcomic.com. It has a much higher ranking of 144,641 [11]
  • Strong Keep. The comic in question not only is a notable comic in the webcomic community, holding several times high rankings in webcomic listing sites, but also has a strong active forum community that is active even when the author is on one of his many hiatuses, which are noted in the article. The webcomic is not currently a campus newspaper comic, although that's how it did start. How it began may have not been notable, but from the fans and attention Loserz has recieved it surely is notable in the webcomic community. The author is not "conceited", as I have not seen the author on this editing page. Also, the person who admittedly put the article up for deletion seems to have a bad reputation on the comics forum community. Wiki pages should not be deleted because someone doesn't like what it's about. I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be about unbiased judgements and facts, not whimsical, arbitrary selections for acceptance and deletion and such. The facts are that loserzcomic.com does have a pretty good alexa rating for a webcomic that is being independantly published on the internet. It has an active community, and has been rated highly by webcomic rating sites in the past. This should show that, among webcomics, this comic is notable. Milam 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. --- Dragonfiend 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepLong running webcomic with a large archive. The reason it fell in popularity is due to the author's long hiatus, which is now over. RogerBarnett 09:41, 31st August 2006 (GMT) ---
  • Keep i have no clue why anyone would want to delete one of the most popular web comics out there from wiki...
  • Keep I see no problem having this article up, there seems to be NO evidence that the article is againts any rules set up by Wikipedia and has been updately daily.--Ripster40 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A whopping 188 unique Googles says this has to go. I'm sure your comic is good and all, but until you get mentioned more often it just has to go. GarrettTalk 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: No reason to delete the entry. its just another piece of information, why remove it?

  • Delete. Remove it because it's not notable. Notable doesn't mean it's been around a long time or it has an active fanbase or it's been rated highly and whether or not the author takes hiatuses is completely irrelevant. It means "it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." A lot of great things in the world aren't notable. Nothing personal fans. Flying Jazz 01:45, 2 September 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.


[edit] Fora

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engi no jutsu

Overly lengthy entry about a non-notable Naruto role-playing forum. Reads off like an FAQ for the site, something Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:WEB test of notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
I'm not seeing any sockpuppets, anyone care to explain? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it's preemptive, since this is a forum we're talking about here (it's also a Naruto fan forum, which makes things a bit worse). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:43, 29 August 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.
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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ozone Fan Forum

A non-notable web forum --Nonpareility 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No assertion of notability. Flunks WP:WEB. SubSeven 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable web forum, and it's not even for ozone fans. JIP | Talk 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:41, 27 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Holdem Forums

Vanity entry for totally un-notable, low traffic website. 2005 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:VAIN; fails WP:WEB. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I had prod'ed as failing WP:WEB, the prod was removed when this AFD nomination was made. It is a waste of the communities resources to AFD nominate on top of a prod, but my opinion on the article is unchanged. GRBerry 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fold, er, I mean Delete as WP:VAIN and failing WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable and doesn't warrant an article. Rray 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely no evidence that site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Essexmutant 22:21, 28 August 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.


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 merge and redirect to IGN. — CharlotteWebb 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Vestibule

Completely non-notable board outsite its members, a well written subsection on IGN is sufficient, and redirection of The Vestibule to IGN should sort things out. It may be worth noting the state of the page currently is very bad. Asterism 16:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect We can't have one article per every board a forum has, no matter how notable. Merge any useful content in IGN and redirect. If we remove all the fancruft, the article becomes one paragraph long. -- ReyBrujo 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect I'm entirely in agreement. Merge what (little) redeemable material that exists into IGN and turn The Vestibule into a redirect. Sephylight 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect There's not much in there, but you could put a (very small) section about it in IGN page. Scrap the list of fads. --Smobey 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect This isn't notable enough for it's own article, mostly useless things are added to this article... --TehBrandon 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to post on this page exactly, I just wanted to say I completely rewrote the article on The Vestibule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.219.112 (talk • contribs) .
    Just put a *'''Comment''' at the beginning of your opinion, then your thoughts, finishing with ~~~~ to sign your post. Also, thanks for your effort. The main concern is that, by allowing a board from a forum to be left as a standalone article, we may see several other articles about forums in Wikipedia. Please see the web notability: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article. -- ReyBrujo 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the point of a wiki if your just going to eliminate the pages which you feel are not worthy. As long as no one is using the page as a forum ( and some are I am sure ) then leave it. Even if its only a little info about it. Its a wiki not news. 71.113.78.158 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Please read my comment immediately above yours: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components are not necessarily notable. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but we must be selective with the articles. -- ReyBrujo 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it should be deleted, a small section on the IGN page just isn't enough, its a complexe place that needs explaining in detail. Hows this for a deal - If i can make it bigger add more ect don't delete it Eagle5 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It might be better to make an article for the IGN Boards as a whole (I see that it currently directs to IGN). There is precedent set by GameFAQs and the GameFAQs message boards article- even the largest individual boards have been rightfully stopped from making their own articles. 71.67.132.178 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect I agree with this above comment. Should be trimmed and moved to an IGN Boards article. --Icep 04:24, 5 September 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xtreme iTalk

Article about a webforum, simply doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB. Upon checking, I find no evidence that it does, either. [12], [13] (only mentioned on ~20 different web sites, most are forums and non seem to be reliable sources. --W.marsh 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Strong Delete. Non-notable forum that has only been around for 8 months with less than 150 members, created by a user whose vanity bio page has already been deleted. --Dennette 19:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as part of Taylor Hewitt's blatant self-promotion campaign. Not a CSD candidate - A7 does not cover web content. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete a non-notable web site.--RMHED 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Awyong has us on a legal technicality here; A7 doesn't cover websites. It certainly needs to go, though, as vanity. - Richardcavell 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete with a recommendation that it be speedily deleted per WP:SNOW. Geoffrey Spear 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Up I think this forum deserves a spot on wikipedia. Taylor Hewitt 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Guys I'm not trying to promote myself! I'm a big user of wikipedia and I want to be part of it all. My forum will be one of the most popular in the world one day and then you will see that it deserved a spot a long time ago. Taylor Hewitt 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, no evidence from reliable sources that this site meets WP:WEB. And if your forum does become one of the most popular in the world one day, create an article, but until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 05:45, 30 August 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.
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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insert Funn13 Here

Article presumably authored by one of the creators, Beast Megatron (talk • contribs). Was tagged for notability; tag removed without comment. Wikipedia tops the Google hits, which proves that this is effective as WP:SPAM if nothing else; gets 7 unique ghits of 69 total. No references cited and the Google results including nothing that could be construed as a reliable source. Fails to demonstrate notability per WP:WEB; fails to meet WP:V; presumably WP:SPAM and/or WP:VAIN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Totally, inexplicably, irredeemably and utterly fails to assert notability per WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, unless secondary reference are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 14:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find nothing that makes this notable, and it fails WP:WEB as such. Thε Halo Θ 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - This "webcomic" is actually hosted on a forum thread. I didn't tag it as CSD in case one of those "A7 is for bios only" admins removed it. - Hahnchen 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, webcomic hosted on a forum? Utterly fails WP:WEB, possible WP:SPAM per the large collection of external links to each... and... every... issue. --Kinu t/c 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Insert detetion here. Irongargoyle 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of having any chance of satisfying WP:WEB. Considering that is a webcomic hosted on a forum, both of which must provide evidence of notablility, this is a perfect storm of non-notability. Also, potential WP:VSCA per the lengthy description of the entire storyline and links to every single issue.-- danntm T C 20:41, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Websites_bf04.html"