Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V7ndotcom Elursrebmem

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V7ndotcom Elursrebmem

Artifact of search engine optimization contest - not encyclopedic Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Term created for a NN contest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Allowing this to exist lets every couple thousand dollar contest get its own page. there's one on hot 97.1 practically every day.--Urthogie 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Achille--Urthogie 22:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This contest is going to be a major one on the web, even bigger than nigritude ultramarine. I created this 'for charity' page to stop the 1000s of other abusers getting to it.--Papamaku 21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  Papamaku (talk • contribs) has only contributed to the article and this AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:59Z

Even though its for a good cause we can't keep it on those grounds. It has to succeed under the requirements of notability.--Urthogie 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is a place people are likely to look for unbiased information on a contest of this type. In the unlikely event that the contest proves not to attract interest or notoriety, the entry can be deleted later. For now, it is a significant piece of net culture. History will later determine whether I am right or wrong on this. Ringbark 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Achille--Ringbark 15:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The dollar prize on this contest isn't indicitive of its magnitude. Thousands are blogging about it including a vocal senior engineer at Google and it is a major test of the Google index. --tspencer 21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no edits to date, how can this be your first edit? Crossout.--Urthogie 21:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a significant viral campaign. Better uses have an objective source to reference information on it, than leave it to the campaigners to promote their own sites on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.213.59 (talk • contribs).

Anons with no contributions can't vote.--Urthogie 21:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that anons with no contributions cannot vote?O'kelly 22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is they can vote, it's just up to the closing admin how to evaluate their vote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a debate. The bulleted bold terms are only a rough guide for getting consensus. Puppets who repeat the same arguments aren't adding anything. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:56Z

My objection was to Urthogie who for some reason decided to strike-through comments by people he decided weren't entitled to their opinion.O'kelly 09:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete contestcruft Dsol 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the content of this article is not verified. What is V7 networks, what is its relevance, and why doesn't the article link it? Dsol 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The page will be rife with spam until the end of the contest and the original article wasn't even that accurate (the rules are based on a 2nd ruleset setup by another SEO, not the contest's originator). Perhaps re-instate after the closing date of the contest (May 15th 2006) to preserve a historical reflection of the event. The extent of the coverage and pickup will ultimately make this an unique event and worthy of a page, but we're nowhere near that stage just now. Weeboab 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This contest IS notable. Unlike mosts contests, there will be much information learned from this one that many will want access to. Wikipedia provides a central point at which to access that information. This contest is part of internet history and certainly worthy of inclusion as other SEO events have also been included. Ccole 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  Ccole (talk • contribs)'s only article-space contributions are linkspam which have been repeatedly revertd. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 06:03Z

• With such a high profile for spam this page will stay cleaner than much of the Wiki IMHO. Take the lack of a V7N link as a for-instance. Obviously they aren't worthy of a back link and everybody so far has agreed with that assessment. I suggest that this page is bound to be at least as good as thousands of current Wikipedia pages. It also brings considerabe exposure to Wikipedia (that's a good thing? Right?)Ccole 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Incognito 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. This is supposed to be an SEO contest, and there are only 10 google hits for the phrase? ridiculuous. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:54Z
• Delete per above. Marskell 09:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not just have the page rewritten with the proper wikipedia layout and feel as a totally unbiased commentary, then lock it against further editting.Papamaku 09:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you've voted twice so far, why not go for a hat trick? Dsol 09:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. People discuss and have interest all sorts of minority things in this life, even dem nasty ol seo types.Why should a topic like V7ndotcom Elursrebmem be any less worthy? The charity thing is good too of course, give the guys a break :)
• Delete per nn arguments stated by all above. If/when this contest is written about in major 3rd party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.), it will, in my mind, have achieved notability and can be recreated. Zunaid 11:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I wholly disagree that the subject of this article is "not encyclopedic". The definition of encyclopedia decribes it as a "compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields)or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field)". The goal of Wikipedia is surely the former is it not? If this is the case then inclusion of an article that is highly significant to the "field" of Search Engine Optimization (as well as historically significant) must be considered valid, noteable, and most of all, encyclopedic. Str0ud 2:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The contest is only 2 days old (hence the lack of Google references to the phrase, although several datacentres are showing 12k+ results - check http://64.233.161.105). There is notable worth from reporting the results of this event, but only after it is finished on May 15th. Weeboab 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Even when there are no results showing yet for some, in the meantime the Wikipedia page may be a good page to point to for those who don't want to give any competitors an advantage. As long as it contains valuable information and can be kept free from spam, maybe it should be kept. Philwiki 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Alterego 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Contest aside, we shouldn't keep neologisms around from contests. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It would serve as a good example of the kind of stupid things people in the SEO world are willing to do for the wrong reasons. This contest is by no means "a major test of the Google index" since it is flawed from the very beginning. After the contest is over, open up the article to a pro/con analysis (moderation will be necessary) of why the contest was valued and why it is flawed.Michael Martinez 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article keeps being edited into nonsense and self-promotion, and I haven't seen a single good reason to keep Jfiling 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Achille --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to some broader SEO-topic would be helpful. -- 84.176.212.169 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Also, a redirect (maybe even a locked one?) will eliminate the temptation to abuse Wikipedia for search enging rank. Eliot 19:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't Wiki. But I will say hold off on a decision. As it appears right now the V7ndotcom_Elursrebme contest is not just a major event in the SEO world, but in internationaally, in blogging circles and perhaps in 'net itself. As it stands today, the contest is in its 4th day and already bigger than the nigritude ultramarine contest of 2004. It has produced newsworthy oddities, as noted by Danny Sullivan and others. It would be best to lock the page until the end of the contest and at that time re-evaluate its worth to Wiki.
• Delete, completely non-noteable. Tedernst | talk 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Redirect to SEO contest. After comparing this article to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info:
  • It's a search contest
  • It has begin/end dates
  • It has a prize
  • It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

If you remove the "fluff" that is being repeated, you can slim the articles down quite a bit. I propose we merge the following into this page:

• • Nigritude ultramarine
  • Seraphim proudleduck
  • V7ndotcom Elursrebmem
    • Note: I have already copied the info for the v7 contest over

Note: Old comment: If you want to delete this article why not delete Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck as well? They are the exact same thing. I'll nominate those articles for deletion myself if this article is deleted. This user has left wikipedia 20:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

They should be deleted. It's better to wait though, so people don't have to copy their comments to three pages at once. If this debate results in deletion it will set a strong precedent. Dsol 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated all of those articles for merge into SEO contest and creating the apropriate category to list them. This user has left wikipedia

• Redirect per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 21 January 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.