Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boricuapixels

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 Speedy Deleted by R3m0t as G7. -- JLaTondre 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boricuapixels

Advertising, non-notable website. Prod was removed, so this is evidently contested, thus the AfD. Ryanjunk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not advertising, boricuapixels.com is the first and currently only pixel page dedicated to the future of Puerto Rico. Four non-profit organizations get funded with proceeds from the site and it has been published about it constantly during its pre-launch only 10 days ago. Several Puerto Rican celebrities support the case of the project and tens of thousands of users have already visited the site and keep on coming back.

This is internet history in Puerto Rico, not advertising. Ny1109 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

the site is notable and famous here on the island. Calling it part of internet history is true. 196.32.130.122 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable.[1]. WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the site is ten days old... read the local press here. Ny1109 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia guidelines: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. The article does not use any sales oriented language and is not linking to a commercial site. The site supports non-profits with their work in Puerto Rico. And the article is meant to document that. As the current coverage in the press in Puerto Rico shows, this is already part of history, which then has a right to be shown in Wikipedia.

Or, as the guideline says, "A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however." The site is only commercial in the sense of that something can be paid for on the site (the pixels), but the proceeds are used for non-profit organizations. Ny1109 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance. -- Krash (Talk) 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

both not guidelines. Who has the right and authority to say if an article is important? This is not a valid basis for evaluation. Importance is not an easy to measure criteria. Similar for notability. The media in Puerto Rico, where the site is based and from where people will want to look something up about it, is covering it, showing both importance and notability. In addition to that, the quality of celebrities supporting the project (being published in the coming days), adds to the fact that it is purely writing internet history for the island. Never has something like this be done before, it is the largest private (non-governmental) fund-raising initiative ever. Ny1109 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Not guidelines. But both generally reflect the way editors think when it comes to deciding what should be kept or what should be deleted. If you wish to continue this discussion with me, please provide some references (preferably plural, however at this point even a single source would give your argument some weight) that support your statement that "the media...is covering it". Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Krash (Talk) 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to pixel advertising. Being located in Puerto Rico does not make this Million Dollar Homepage-clone notable. - Rynne 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable web site. Zero ghits, just started, does not pass WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a web directory or a vehicle for advertising. Weregerbil 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

you know what: just delete it. The way the so called editors think is probably the reason why they are "editors" of a free encyclopedia rather than a real one. Bye. Ny1109 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, author requests deletion (CSD G7). Weregerbil 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Ny1109: Wikipedia does have rules about verifiability and notability on the subjects of articles. Perhaps you can list your web site somewhere more suitable; surely there are web directories that welcome links? If your web site becomes famous then it is most certainly welcome on Wikipedia! Weregerbil 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As the original {{prod}}der, this is a non-notable million dollar homepage copy.  (aeropagitica)  18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

as pointed out before, this is the first and largest of its kind project in Puerto Rico and this alone should already qualify, given the appeareance in the media. But simply delete it. Ny1109 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Does author conceding at AfD qualify for CSD G7? -- Krash (Talk) 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ny1109: please, you are giving us mixed signals here. You claim media coverage but don't provide evidence of it. And you repeat requests to delete this article. Now what is it? Please discuss the matter, acting like a victim or a martyr does not accomplish anything. Give us a verifiable claim to notability per Wikipedia policy and the article gets kept in a hurry! We are not your enemies, we are trying to provide good information in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Weregerbil 21:19, 9 March 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.