Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFreeWorld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 discussion was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFreeWorld

Fails WP:WEB. The tone is completely inappropriate: that could be fixed, but no point. Delete The JPStalk to me 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Hmmm, agreed. Delete -- Francs2000 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The tone can be changed, why should it be deleted? It represents a large online community. It is an original concept. It is unique online. A phenomena of the net generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barnabyferrero (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider until you have had at least a requisite number of discussions upon which you can base your opinion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 July 2006.
    This process takes five days. That's long enough. -- Francs2000 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why delete??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 July 2006
  • I have reworded the entry...please tell me which part of the tone is still completely inappropriate? --Barnabyferrero 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Please read WP:WEB. These are our guidelines. Unless you can provide evidence that this article meets our criteria then it will be deleted. The JPStalk to me 12:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete Pure WP:SPAM fails WP:WEB also article partly lifted from here and the external link to the web page is a log in page, so nothing further can be learned DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding those last two points...the login page actually has more information on it if you follow the 'about' or 'join afw' links...these pages are all extensions of the index.php file so cannot be linked to directly from wikipedia. The article party lifted is lifted from the website and is text that I wrote originally - so there is no copyright breach. Regarding the first two points. Please tell me how this listing breaches WP:SPAM where asmallworld does not? I was neutral in my description!! Regarding WP:WEB fair point - working on finding some published independent articles right now! [AS IN LOOKING FOR THEM] --Barnabyferrero 12:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be spam for a blog site.--Michael Johnson 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, for a start. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

--- How could it be spam? This is non-commercial and new users have to be invited. Even if 10,000 people visit the site, none of them can get in, so I fail to see how a posting on wikipedia can be of any advertising benefit to the site. If you wanna delete the entry then fine. But the entry is more about the concept rather than an actual URL address. A concept which is rare to find - as Wikipedia is currently proving....--Barnabyferrero 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not spam.

I am loathe to compare, but what is the difference between including asw, friendster etc and not AFW?

Is the tone anything but more apt in the progressive stride for a VERIFIABLE source of entertainment?

There are no published articles.... I fail to see why that is required? Had we wanted to publish such blatent attempts at self publication we would have done so. However, that is not the point of AFW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) .

It is a site that has brought together people with wide vision and great tolerance. And has outlived the 6 month life span of newly opened forums.

A venue which has over one and a half thousand members and has been opened for nearly two years. It is active, revoloutionary and a testament to the free license that we all are gifted with.


With no disrespect intended, AFW is no less a station of notice than Michael Johnson (above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment: Published articles about the site are a basic requirement so that the article is verifiable, among other things. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as this does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this fails notability policy and WP:WEB doktorb wordsdeeds 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard numerous mention of this site on asmallworld and from what I understand it is an offshoot of a number of memebers of this site. From what I understand it is mainly an experiment in absolute free speech without moderation and using relative anonymity. I hear they have well over 1000 members and that they are well beyond being a blog. From what I have read they have held a number of gatherings and parties in London, Paris, Italy and even Dubai. I think the entry of this site is as legitimate as the one for asmallworld or friendster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmcnamara (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006


§This site is a truly innovative idea and part of internet culture. It is not a blog, this site as the founder described in the entry is a place where people discuss political, cultural and mundane things. This online community is well renowned and has a growing membership. anna --Furball1975 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No sock-puppets so far. Please check the address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006

Please check my e mail address. This is ridiculous. You can not accuse without proof.--Furball1975 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---It's ok. Wikipedia can see from which IP address each comment comes from. I sign everything I write with the same name. No WP:SOCKSs here! Michael Johnson, according to your profile it says you are against internet censorship....--Barnabyferrero 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: The first edits to Wikipedia by both Sbmcnamara and Furball1975 were made to this debate. The JPStalk to me 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • AFW deserves to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 July 2006
  • I think you've aired your opinion now, don't you think? The JPStalk to me 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I think so yes! Glad you noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2006)

Could you please observe the request about signing comments left on your talk page. The JPStalk to me 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as others have said. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment ...and block the sock puppets - virtually all of the defendents have only edited this discussion... michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above - to the defendents: please read Wikipedia deletion policies before trying to defend your entry or taking offense to this nomination. I personally categorize this article as WP:Spam. Srose (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, webspamming. NawlinWiki 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This article would throw out its arm trying to pat itself on the back. Could be rewritten, but it comes down to the fact that it fails notability requirements. Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bigtop. This is an advert, not a verifiable article.--DaveG12345 02:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems like it is advertising and/or a vanity entry. Davidpdx 09:27, 12 July 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.