Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akaneon
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 was delete per the snowball clause, WP:CSD A7 (unremarkable website without assertion of notability), and WP:CSD G11 (spam). The author's conduct relating to this AfD is entirely unacceptable, and he has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Due to the particularly contentious nature of this topic and high chance of attempted recreation, I am salting the article to prevent recreation. Alphachimp 15:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Akaneon
This was a disputed speedy. It's a website with no sources, no assertion of significance, and an alexa ranking over 600K. The article was written by the creator of the site who objects to it being deleted. In the interest of fairness, I figured I'd bring it to Afd, even tho it looks like obvious self-promotion to me. Friday (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I found this search result to be rather interesting. Apparently, according to the webmaster/author, the google cabal is out to supress Akaneon. Our good friend here appears to think very highly of himself and his site. Either that or it's a classic case of trolling. -- wtfunkymonkey 13:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- OF course he does. He insisted on believing that everyone who disagreed with him was a sockpuppet instead of admitting he might actually be wrong. -Amarkov babble 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- We should be commending him though. Based on the lack of keep votes here, it's obvious that he didn't stoop to sockpupppetry like we did. Right? Metros232 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- OF course he does. He insisted on believing that everyone who disagreed with him was a sockpuppet instead of admitting he might actually be wrong. -Amarkov babble 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. A MySpace of the creator and a webpage stat site is not an assertion of notability. -Amarkov babble 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep in original format and/or edit. The article uses entirely objective language. Traffic ranking is not the key to whether or not an article is legitimate, it is the factual and objective basis of the article itself. The assertion of significant is made in the comparison and contrast using objective terminology towards other sites. In no place, shape or form does bias occur, the article is written from a neutral tone. If there are no sources listed, please use the 'citation needed' tag where you feel citation is needed. I wrote the article myself, however the tone is non-promotional. If you would like to re-write the article yourself, I have offered to you several times to edit it. I request for 'the interest of fairness' that your deletion record be examined, as I believe that your primary interest is in deleting articles, not editing them. Your actual contribution record is very low and therefore your right to criticize someone else's contributions is in question. Once again I propose to all involved parties that if the article is not in accordance with policies that the specific questionable points be noted so that I can re-write it in a way that will be considered acceptable, otherwise, I propose that the article be left in original untouched format. - Akaneon 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- By that argument, nothing would ever be deleted. You're missing the point. THE SUBJECT ITSELF IS NOT NOTABLE. Thus, ANY article on it is rule-breaking. -Amarkov babble 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is your opinion on the subject, however for purposes of neutrality the article should be left untouched as the subject matter is equal to the current listings of Facebook, MySpace, and orkut. Why is the subject matter non-notable if the site has equal objective factual content, and the listing has equal objective content to previously listed sites? I call into question your own bias and the fact that you are a close friend and associate of Friday as a potential discredit to your neutrality. Please allow some neutral sources to enter the debate and question for themselves which parts of the article are subjective or not in accordance with wiki policies and/or previous articles in the same vein. Prove that the content is irrelevant. - Akaneon 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- By that argument, nothing would ever be deleted. You're missing the point. THE SUBJECT ITSELF IS NOT NOTABLE. Thus, ANY article on it is rule-breaking. -Amarkov babble 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I did. I'm very familiar with them. Show me exactly where this article fails in terms of any of those guidelines, and I'll fix it instantly. Otherwise, this is simply your opinion that it is promotional and not encyclopedic. I want a direct citation from the article that indicates that it is purely promotional. The previous articles indicate that my article is also written correctly as it is over 80% identical to existing articles of the same type on the same subject. - Akaneon 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You obviously do not understand them. It is the author's responsibility to assert notability and provide reliable sources. It is not our responsibility to prove that there are no reliable sources. Plus, it's the LACK of things in the article that fails WP:NOTE, so I can't provide something from the article. -Amarkov babble 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Direct quote from WP:V - Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves. Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
- * it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
- * it is not contentious;
- * it is not unduly self-serving;
- * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
- * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
- - Akaneon 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would also like to show for the record that WP:RS is disputed, WP:HORSELEGS is an essay, and WP:AGF is called into question by your actions on this article. - Akaneon 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- User has been indefinitely blocked. Yanksox 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, not everything goes into an encyclopedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. Illustrate how this is not notable; there are over 150 other sites listed using the same format used on this article at List_of_social_networking_sites. Please be specific. - Akaneon 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Follows the rule of precedence. A duplicate of an existing notable article on a similar yet different topic with an almost identical article indicates through the precedent that the article is automatically notable and relevant. - Akaneon 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete as per nom. Devotchka 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mention to users browsing this topic: Please do not create new entries on this topic unless you have evidence to contribute. This is a debate, not a vote. Thank you. - P.S., Devotchka, please stop spamming the edit section, thank you. - Akaneon 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- If they have new arguments to contribute, they can come, too. For that matter, they can post if they feel like it, regardless of what you or I say. -Amarkov babble 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Right, but it doesn't mean much when it's one or two guys who are all friends using multiple accounts to attempt to unduly position things in their favor. Also, per nom is a linking statement which must specifically indicate previous statements made. There is no statement made and therefore per nom is invalid in this case as per nom can only be used on a factual basis. No facts have been contributed to this article since creation that indicate specific reasons the article should be deleted. The only 'reasons' listed are simply opinions and not factually based and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt by readers of this topic. - Akaneon 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- If they have new arguments to contribute, they can come, too. For that matter, they can post if they feel like it, regardless of what you or I say. -Amarkov babble 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This is not a vote, and the admin who reads this page and makes a decision will take into account your concerns that we are all friends collaberating against you. That closing admin will also look that validity of you arguement that per nom is not a valid opinion.
-
- Delete, seems to fail WP:WEB. Only assertion of notability seems to be "by association" (that someone from MySpace assisted in its creation), only other sources are primary. No secondary sources are cited per criterion 1 (multiple, secondary, non-trivial writeups), no assertion that the site has won a non-trivial award per criterion 2, no assertion of independent distribution per criterion 3. Per discussion above, "someone else got away with it" is not a notability criterion-that just may mean some other page may have slipped by and needs to be sent here as well. Myspace, however, is not one of those-it at least undisputedly meets rule 1 of WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I invoke CSD criteria A7 and G11, WP:N, and WP:WEB as reasons for deletion. And demanding that others provide proof for the "non-notability" of this article defies logic and violates WP:V where it explicitly states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --210physicq (c) 03:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above. The site has only been around two months, and it doesn't seem to be attracting much attention from the world at large. eaolson 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above - Wikipedia isn't a link directory or an inexpensive advertizing solution. Non-notable. Robovski 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Topic is valid as per WebBiographies and Decayenne. Most of the people in this topic are simply trying to get more speedy delete points for themselves rather than actually analyzing the article itself. Also, sockpuppetry is suspected. - Akaneon 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- How many speedy delete points do I need to cash in for the toaster oven? eaolson 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why do you think you get a toaster oven? 3 speedy points will get you an AAAAAAAAA!. -Amarkov babble 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I heard contribution points and edits were more valuable, from a reliable source. I suspect jealousy amongst the "speedy-delete" teams on wikipedia, as they tend to focus more on deleting other peoples articles than creating new ones. Perhaps they're incapable? - Akaneon 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Please refrain from personal attacks and remember to assume good faith, please. A given AfD isn't really the appropriate place to debate deletion policy as a whole, but there are plenty of places that are. If you'd like me to direct you there please let me know. Seraphimblade 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete looking through the Google hits for Akaneon almost all I see is Craig spamming tons of people's MySpace pages saying "If you're a real friend you'll come join" etc. No notability offered through independent, reliable sources. Delete until this becomes a notable website. I also suggest that the author of the article read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Metros232 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. A new website is not notable, unless it's been featured in the press as having done something significantly different or something to distinguish itself from the crowd. This one hasn't. --Steve 04:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced, non-notable, vanity article, added by user first thing after creating account yesterday. [1] He plainly has no other purpose here than to promote himself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. For one thing, the article comes off as incredibly spammy, and another, per the nom, it's not exactly notable. If notability were measured by association, I should get my own article here beyond my userpage because I have a Livejournal account - and you KNOW how much crud that would generate. --Dennisthe2 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete just by looking at the google results and impressive number of sources in the article. And after reading the author's comments, there's no doubt in my mind that this is a typical WP:OR, non-WP:V article with no intent but to promote its subject. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - sorry; I understand your desire to create a website and use publicity, but please realize, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that has ever existed" (from policy page), nor is spam acceptable. I believe that you're trying to use it for advertisement. If your site becomes notable, you can post it here afterwards. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Stronge delete. Had I found it first, it wouldn't have survived longer than I could type "WP:CSD#G11". — Saxifrage ✎ 05:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Ultimately, this article is about something that nobody cares about. It's not newsworthy, it's not notable, and it has no place in an encyclopedia.Xeinart 06:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable, vanity article. There's way more attention being paid to the AfD page than will ever be paid to the article itself. This is, by all means, a Speedy Delete. -- wtfunkymonkey 07:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria, should be speedied in fact. Wikipedia is not your advertising space. --Terence Ong (C | R) 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not evident, WP:WEB. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's not as if the deletion argument needed another supporter, but the article's creator was such a jerk to so many excellent, established users that I figured I'd tip the scale juuuust a bit more in favor of getting rid of this spam that fails WP:WEB in every way. -- Kicking222 15:24, 9 November 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.
