Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andkon
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.
After considering this debate carefully, I have come to a conclusion that consensus exists to delete this article. If Andkon wishes to write about (him/her)self, (s)he can create a user page. Denelson83 02:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Andkon
- NOTICE: Article protected from further edits during this AFD since personal attacks were made on it.
Vanity article for non-notable site owner/blogger/forum poster. Site has an Alexa rank of 195,916, he's been involved in flamewars, okay, but I don't see any media attention or anything to support notability. W.marsh 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, at least if notability can be better established. --Daedalus-Prime 01:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)- Changing my vote to Delete. Attacks in AfD make me a deletionist... --Daedalus-Prime 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's nice to see someone of such high principles. Andkon 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Delete. Attacks in AfD make me a deletionist... --Daedalus-Prime 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete this is OBVIOUS VANITY! not notable and the facts given are unverifiable.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also vanity. Ifnord 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- NOT A VANITY PAGE I am "The Reverend", also known as Reverend Bijhan Al-Attack. My website is http://reverend.andkon.com. I am a fan-turned-friend of Andkon, but not Andkon himself, and I wrote the article. That disqualifies this as a vanity page. Popular Enough Also, I discovered him through a search engine, but he is linked through collegehumor.com and metafilter.com, both popular and established sites. His own stat counters, as he informs me, have counted on the arcade page he has recorded 10,000 unique visits a day, in contrast to the Alexa rank. As for his involvement in flamewars, that is a political issue, not to be judged by his worthiness as a wikipedia article. We have the whore that Hugh Grant slept with on this site, Andkon is hardly a misuse of space.
- Delete Sigh. I find it depressing that this could garner non-s.p. votes to keep, even weakly. Dottore So 10:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. Marcus22 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable blogger and forum poster.--Isotope23 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable vanity Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It may or may not be vanity, but it doesn't meet notability guidelines for bios or websites. — Haeleth Talk 16:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone in here is familiar with what non-notable is since I'm the only one here who runs a website that exceeds the ten thousand mark on a daily basis. Since no one here is able to quit college because of earning money from a website, no wonder everyone is so familiar with what non-notable is. And considering Alexa is rated malicious spyware by Norton and Spybot, I'm not exactly sure what such a low-standard is being used on Wikipedia. Oh yes, this is Andkon himself.
-
- Not able to quit college? Andkon, I think a lot of your arguments are pretty fair and you raise some good points. However, you are a little presumptive in this opinion re: college and notability. Believe me, Wikipedia users come from all backgrounds: different age groups, different countries, different sexes, different races and, needless to say, differing socio-economic groups. We don't all need to run websites such as yours in order to be able to quit college and, in any case, some of us left "college" a long time ago! Marcus22 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Who ever set this up for delete has issues.Andkon is a site with nearly 700 arcade games all free and without pop-ups or anything malcious. Not only that it features a webcomic that as spanned over 100 issues and is constantly in updation. To say this site is insginificant is quite ignorant. This is site is so popular that the author of it can actually make a living off of it out of ad revenue alone. If this site where to actually be deleted you would also need to delete almost every other article entry that is about a website. This article in fact, was not even done by Andras, but by a friend. Every single reason to delete this site is unfounded and/or horrbly incorrect. This is a joke and stains what Wiki really is. DrunkCat 18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable per proposed policy WP:WEB and nomination. I wish them the best of luck in making it notable, but so far, it doesn't qualify. --William Pietri 18:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Delete every article about a website, too, for that matter. WP is not a web guide. The criterion for inclusion is not "pays its way," but, instead, "is much discussed by second and third hand parties, has a large effect on the world around it." It may be pleasant, fun, well done, etc., and yet it is just another website for all of that. Geogre 18:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable vanity. No Account 18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment there seems to be some new-to-wikipedia people here and that's fine. Wikipedia is not just your private webhost, the only articles that are supposed to be here are ones which are notable. A good guideline of what that means is Wikipedia:Websites, which clearly this site does not pass. 10,000 hits a day is about enough for a 200,000 rank on Alexa... based on experience (2 million daily pageviews is about a rank of 1,500 for example). Ultimately there are millions of sites as popular as this one. Sorry. --W.marsh 19:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete this from Wikipedia. This is not a 'best of the web' site. If it was, Ankon.com would not feature.
No, marsh... closer to 500,000 "hits" per day. Please consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics#Web_Analytics_Concepts
And this is rich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker%2C_Missouri So a group of 5 people get an article, but a group that includes tens of thousands don't? Is is because we're black?
- Keep: This site is beneficial to a lot of people. Considering he gets hundreds of thousands of page hits, its a unique site. Considering the number of pages that only contain a single line or a reference that could easily be tied into another topic, at least this is a special, independent, stand-alone article.
- Non-Notable? Hey, I have an idea, lets be mean and ignore the facts and label this article as non-notable despite Andkon having an arcade with over 700 games with no pop-ads or malcious coding and having enough unique hits to gain a living from the money of ad revenue alone. Please make up another faux excuse to delete this site for this one is clearly wrong. DrunkCat 19:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad people enjoy the site, and kudos to the builders for making something that people like. But mildly successful businesses are not automatically notable; otherwise we'll have to list every sandwich shop and convenience story in the country. To change my vote, you'll need to come up with press clippings, Webby nominations, or an Alexa ranking two orders of magnitude higher. A more collegial and reasonable tone from pro-keep partisans would be nice, too. --William Pietri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Webby Awards is nothing but a get-rich scheme. Registration to be considered costs money and can be done by the website's owner. It's lovely see WP using spyware and get-rich schemes as standards. The corporate run media can't be trusted to report correctly on an elementary school science fair, so unfortunately I haven't been able to buy my way into newspapers through PR firms. Andkon 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I find the proposed alternative standard (that the site makes money and has a few ardent fans) unpersuasive and unverifiable. Best of luck in becoming notable, but so far I'm going by WP:WEB, Google's count of incoming links, and the other markers I mentioned. The world may not be properly honoring your talent and effort, but Wikipedia's not the place to fix that. --William Pietri 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- So why is a completely unremarkable place with five people staying while Andkon is out? 209.184.165.20 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable question. I can't find the policy, but you can see that the strong consensus is to keep all recognized places, no matter how small. My theory is that the legal and social recognition of cities and towns means that the world has formally noted them, and that they're therefore notable here. You might reasonably feel this is inconsistent, in which case I'd encourage you to lobby for a change in policy on notability of small towns. But WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP, like WP:WEB, are all pretty clear: existence isn't enough for notability; you have to really stand out from the crowd. --William Pietri 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- With almost a million entries, it'd be nice to see Wikipedia getting a bit more organized. I'd personally prefer a system *without* anonymous edits and semi- to fully-professional editors with anonymous/registered users only flagging for changes and entries. Under such a scheme I wouldn't get in but with a million entries I insist on having my part of the pie. If Nowheresville, USA gets in for absolutely no reason, I'm not sure why I or other like me shouldn't. I mean are you people saying all of the almost million are all more noteworthy than Andkon. You must be kidding, right? I'm pretty certain I have a bigger following than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ali_bin_Al-Hussein Andkon 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- That would also be an interesting way to run things, and if you think a site like that would be better, you should start it. Under Wikipedia's license, you can even start with the all the current Wikipedia content. I'm sorry that you're upset, and if you think you have found articles that don't meet the current criteria for inclusion, you should nominate them for deletion as well. Regards, --William Pietri 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to know the criteria that's being applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk • contribs)
- Basically, Wikipedia:Websites, as has been mentioned several times in this AfD. --W.marsh 22:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to know the criteria that's being applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk • contribs)
- That would also be an interesting way to run things, and if you think a site like that would be better, you should start it. Under Wikipedia's license, you can even start with the all the current Wikipedia content. I'm sorry that you're upset, and if you think you have found articles that don't meet the current criteria for inclusion, you should nominate them for deletion as well. Regards, --William Pietri 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- With almost a million entries, it'd be nice to see Wikipedia getting a bit more organized. I'd personally prefer a system *without* anonymous edits and semi- to fully-professional editors with anonymous/registered users only flagging for changes and entries. Under such a scheme I wouldn't get in but with a million entries I insist on having my part of the pie. If Nowheresville, USA gets in for absolutely no reason, I'm not sure why I or other like me shouldn't. I mean are you people saying all of the almost million are all more noteworthy than Andkon. You must be kidding, right? I'm pretty certain I have a bigger following than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ali_bin_Al-Hussein Andkon 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable question. I can't find the policy, but you can see that the strong consensus is to keep all recognized places, no matter how small. My theory is that the legal and social recognition of cities and towns means that the world has formally noted them, and that they're therefore notable here. You might reasonably feel this is inconsistent, in which case I'd encourage you to lobby for a change in policy on notability of small towns. But WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP, like WP:WEB, are all pretty clear: existence isn't enough for notability; you have to really stand out from the crowd. --William Pietri 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- So why is a completely unremarkable place with five people staying while Andkon is out? 209.184.165.20 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I find the proposed alternative standard (that the site makes money and has a few ardent fans) unpersuasive and unverifiable. Best of luck in becoming notable, but so far I'm going by WP:WEB, Google's count of incoming links, and the other markers I mentioned. The world may not be properly honoring your talent and effort, but Wikipedia's not the place to fix that. --William Pietri 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Webby Awards is nothing but a get-rich scheme. Registration to be considered costs money and can be done by the website's owner. It's lovely see WP using spyware and get-rich schemes as standards. The corporate run media can't be trusted to report correctly on an elementary school science fair, so unfortunately I haven't been able to buy my way into newspapers through PR firms. Andkon 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad people enjoy the site, and kudos to the builders for making something that people like. But mildly successful businesses are not automatically notable; otherwise we'll have to list every sandwich shop and convenience story in the country. To change my vote, you'll need to come up with press clippings, Webby nominations, or an Alexa ranking two orders of magnitude higher. A more collegial and reasonable tone from pro-keep partisans would be nice, too. --William Pietri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Hehe, thanks Clint and Drunky! Andkon 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "This page is a *proposed* Wikipedia policy, guideline, process, or informational page." So you got an established guidelines? Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment This is getting out of hand. Signed votes have been made by unbiased voters, unsigned votes by blatent sockpuppets/fans/etc. typically get very little weight so you're wasting your time. If you want to argue about the criteria for website notability, I think there is an open discussion linked to on the daily AfD page. --W.marsh 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Marsh, please don't slander like that. None of my reason are bias period. I'd love for you to point out where I deviated from facts and stats to show me where I was bias. If you want to delete this site for your own bias reason then I think this entire page should be voided. Oh hey, lets ignore the fact how long this article's been up too. DrunkCat 19:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Truth: Fans, yeah that's one thing a popular site would expect. Sockpuppets? None. The IP of beneficial comment is a friend from the same college I'm finishing the semester at, who also added the new hilarious but still correct bio on the front. LOL :-) Andkon 19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment: You are missing the point. If you think those pages d=on't meet the relevant criteria, you can nominate them for deletion. You have exactly the same edit rights in Wikipedia as I do. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable No Guru 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, vanity issues, etc. Sliggy 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Double Standards? The Wikipedia self-appointed Death Squad should also kill the pages for Limecat and that weird Hello My Future Girlfriend. Both have terrible Alexa ranks. Andkon 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- You appear to have missed the point. You have exactly the same rights in Wikipedia as I do - there is nothing stopping you nominating those other pages for deletion if you have good reason to believe they fail to meet the relevant criteria. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I personally don't care if Limecat or whatever the hell else has its own page. But if they do, I want to be held to the same standards. So far, I've been told that my website doesn't confirm to "proposed" guidelines which are "not policy." That's like breaking a law before it's made. Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a government; it's a wiki. The guidelines are extracted from many discussions like this one. After a long process applying them and seeing how they work, they become so uncontroversial that we call them policy. (This is basically how the Internet developed, so there's some precedent.) If you have some reason to change the proposed policies besides not liking them, then by all means go to their talk pages and propose changes. Or if you have some first-principles argument about why this should stay despite not matching criteria that have been working for us otherwise, please do make it. Honest, this isn't some vast conspiracy against you; if you look at the other AfDs on the same day as yours, you'll see that dozens of things get deleted as non-notable every day under similar criteria. --William Pietri 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I personally don't care if Limecat or whatever the hell else has its own page. But if they do, I want to be held to the same standards. So far, I've been told that my website doesn't confirm to "proposed" guidelines which are "not policy." That's like breaking a law before it's made. Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, mostly for vanity. Melchoir 02:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity article about someone's friend's non-notable website. --Stormie 11:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, significant enough website, gets 41,000 google hits, I'm not going to be biased against it just because the webowner's buddy is here defending it. HGB 00:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- How do you get that number, HGB? For his website, I get 1420 links and 2840 mentions a number of which are for other sites hosted on subdomains. For him personally, it's harder to tell, but it seems like Google comes up with 751 actual hits, many of which are cruft. That seems pretty far from WP:BIO to me. --William Pietri 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- This speaks for itself: http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.andkon.com/arcade/ Note the bucketloads of activity near the bottom. Andkon 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that's exciting for you, but I can't see why that would be a better standard than the other ones mentioned on WP:BIO or WP:WEB. Sorry. If you're very excited about keeping this content, have you considered moving it to your user page? --William Pietri 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Man, I'd hate to get famous and listen to all negative comments like "seems to be notable and batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion." It's not about the content, I could easily print ten thousand copies and post it all over the city if I really wanted to. It's the part where Wikipedia has room for a million entries but not me? Ridiculous. Andkon 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- We don't seem to be making any progress here, Andkon. I think your position is clear, and I've tried hard to explain Wikipedia's position to you. If you have any more questions, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Best of luck in your efforts. --William Pietri 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain how http://ranking.websearch.com/ can't be used as the standard because Alexa is screwing my site? Andkon 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you think that would be a better standard, go propose it, although personally I'd argue against it. But it wouldn't matter, as a rank of 53,069 is still not notable. And even if it were, that would only merit adding a page for your site, rather than for you personally. At this point, Andkon, everybody else has moved on, and the consensus is pretty clear. I've just stayed in hopes of educating you and your pals. If there's something you want to understand (as opposed to argue about) then ask me on my talk page. I'm moving on, and hope you will too. --23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not quitting college just to be spit on elsewhere. Upon deletion of the article, I can confidently give WP the Andkon guarantee that the next time we'll have this discussion I'll have the support of a cybermob numbering in the triple digits which by itself will warrant a few articles. Andkon 00:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you think that would be a better standard, go propose it, although personally I'd argue against it. But it wouldn't matter, as a rank of 53,069 is still not notable. And even if it were, that would only merit adding a page for your site, rather than for you personally. At this point, Andkon, everybody else has moved on, and the consensus is pretty clear. I've just stayed in hopes of educating you and your pals. If there's something you want to understand (as opposed to argue about) then ask me on my talk page. I'm moving on, and hope you will too. --23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain how http://ranking.websearch.com/ can't be used as the standard because Alexa is screwing my site? Andkon 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- We don't seem to be making any progress here, Andkon. I think your position is clear, and I've tried hard to explain Wikipedia's position to you. If you have any more questions, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Best of luck in your efforts. --William Pietri 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Man, I'd hate to get famous and listen to all negative comments like "seems to be notable and batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion." It's not about the content, I could easily print ten thousand copies and post it all over the city if I really wanted to. It's the part where Wikipedia has room for a million entries but not me? Ridiculous. Andkon 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that's exciting for you, but I can't see why that would be a better standard than the other ones mentioned on WP:BIO or WP:WEB. Sorry. If you're very excited about keeping this content, have you considered moving it to your user page? --William Pietri 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- This speaks for itself: http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.andkon.com/arcade/ Note the bucketloads of activity near the bottom. Andkon 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- How do you get that number, HGB? For his website, I get 1420 links and 2840 mentions a number of which are for other sites hosted on subdomains. For him personally, it's harder to tell, but it seems like Google comes up with 751 actual hits, many of which are cruft. That seems pretty far from WP:BIO to me. --William Pietri 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also interesting to note is that at least three people, none of whom I know, edited my heroic biography before the Death Squad decided it was wasting space. Did any of these people take anything away? No, they fixed minor things and *added* the article to category pages. It's very hard to get a fair hearing when the people doing the deleting are self-appointed using vague and unapproved standards. Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- If WP is in the business of setting policy by the way of malicious spyware, why not use http://ranking.websearch.com/ ? Andkon 19:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC) add: if we take metafilter.com, collegehumor.com, and wikipedia.org we will see that Alexa is screwing Andkon.com quite heavily.
- Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
'NOT A WEBSITE PAGE' People keep complaining that this is a "best of the web" page. It's not even about a website, it's about a man named Andras Konya, who commonly goes by Andkon. He notable not only as a webmaster, but also as an activist in the Mozilla community. The page is not vanity, because it was written by me, The Reverend, who is not only a distinct person but also more than 2,500 miles away from Andkon, and it can be proven by the logs of the editing of the article. The reverend 01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Correction: outcast not activist. As you'll remember, the idiot savants at Mozilla refused to take that Mozfest idea, which of the same technique of guess/check has doubled/tripled my ad revenue. But in my glory days I was being headlined every other month on Mozillazine (and thus on the bottom of the front of Mozilla.org). Oh well. Andkon 01:29, 11 November 2005 (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.
