Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Break.com

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break.com

Break.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website which reads like an advertisement. Delete Real96 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

* Delete clearly an advertisement/spam ZBrannigan 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep Veteran Wiki Archivist 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)This user has made no contributions other than to the AfD of this article. Real96 09:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Real96 The deletion policy is clear when it states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Also, What are you stating here? Because (Veteran Wika Archivist) is a "new" user he is not right in what he is/was doing? This user saw the need to edit this page, as it was obviously compiled by somebody within Break.com (with all the self back patting within its content). You have only been with us a few months yourself. This should never have been marked for deletion when only a clean up was necessary. I will recommend to Wiki admin that new members be restricted in these processes in future.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollyfodder (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Veteran Wika Archivist 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Response to the statement above regarding my contributions. I have been with Wikipedia for over 3 years and due to the nature of the recent amendments I have made to the Break.com page, am unable to use my real username without exposing myself to Break.com. Hence, my commitment to Wikipedia has spanned longer than a few months! I believe in telling both sides of a story for TRUE historical value! The Break.com page was nothing more than an advertisement before my amendments, and now reflect the true Break.com. Wikipedia has always been about ACCURACY, TRUTH and FACT! we cannot and MUST not show bias as editors!
  • A fine example of the bias I am refering to can be seen on the Peter Beattie page. This page is obviously edited by one of Mr Beatties 150 strong media entourage as it only reflects the few achievements of the Beattie government, not the current woes faced by Queensland under his rule. Editors need to have a very close look at this page. Whenever any of us try to ammend this page our work is undone within a matter of hours. Is this what Wikipedia is about? NO! Please have a good think about this. When you get to my age you will appreciate my concerns.
Recent amendments I have added to this page have shown this site up for what it really is. I agree, it was originally an advertisement probably set up by an employee of break.com, but now amongst the original self "back patting" the truths are coming out, thus, I strongly recomend we leave it in here. may teach them a valuable lesson! There are more to come! I also suggest that whilst these truths have been exposed, the page should be LOCKED. I also suggest Wikipedia barr the IP of the person who originally submitted this advertisement/spam from this page.
  • Delete its like an ad and is self promo. dont agree keepin it, this is an encyclpedia not a fun chat room. the truths about the site can go elsewhere.--Zedco 11:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Veteran Wiki Archivist 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Yes it was an advertisement/spam which is why I edited it. Break.com has always portrayed itself as a squeaky clean site for kids. My recent modifications to this advertisement/spam has exposed this site for what it really is. Parents also need to know these truths to prevent their children from entering this site.
  • Delete - This is a non-notable website. Also, the article is written with a very unecyclopedic tone to it. Unless there are sources that can confirm its notoriety, it does not merit inclusion.--Cyrus Andiron t/c 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Website seems to have crossed into notability[1], but needs substantial Cleanup, especially NPOV. Citicat 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, obvious spam; violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Non-notable? Spam? These users must not know anyone that works in an office with a computer. Break.com is one of 3 premiere "workplace diversion" media sites,(Break.com, Thatvideosite.com, eBaumsworld.com) albeit the riskiest of the 3(frequently unfiltered adult-oriented content). It is very notable, (though not my personal favourite). I agree with the "badly written" comment, but that can be redone easily. I don't see how it qualifies for deletion. Cleanup is needed.--Lostcause365 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not meet WP:WEB but has page views regularly exceeding 1,000,000 ("Views" are listed on each piece of content). If this goes then Collegehumor may as well go. Agree Cleanup is needed. Robbielatchford 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under {{db-advert}}. - Iridescenti 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, over 1000 Google News Archive results, many likely usable to source the article. Frequently brought up as a YouTube competitor. Clearly one of the "breakout" casual humor/video websites. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've done some cleanup, mainly removing all the internal links to various parts of the website, and some unrelated content such as websites (that you've never heard of) owned by the same company. There was also an obvious corporate turfing of many mentions of Break.com as "TMFT Enterprises LLC website Break.com", also removed. The article still needs references, though. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Probably shouldn't have been here Garcia-Fons 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, total spam; violates WP:SPAM Prester John 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The content is sourceable and is encyclopedic. It by no means serves as an advertisement, and I can well understand the reticence of Veteran Wiki Archivist. Alexa ranks are in my opinion not good for much but showing significance of sites like this is one of the things they are good for, for there isnt much other way to select out the real losers. DGG 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources proving notability. Most of article is unsourced and OR. I hope closing admin disregards the SPAs. —Ocatecir Talk 08:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with DGG. Alexa rank of 73 in the US is a strong indicator of notability. I think many of the comments here reflect an anti-commercial bias. Describing a company and its products is not necessarily advertising or spam. As far as the tone, I don't think it is any worse than the average WP article--sure it could be improved, but it does not deserve some of the overly negative comments registered above. Dhaluza 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 05:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP A clean up was warranted but most of the content seems fine now. I cannot understand the removal of the "culture section" within the last 24 hours. There have been a few unnecessary deletes within the last 72 hours. I have edited several sections and have left explanatory notes. I have also locked the page and recommend that this be finalised withing 24 hours, will mention this to Wiki Admin. Totally aggree with Veteran Wiki Archivist, accuracy, honesty and truth are paramount if Wiki is to remain credible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollyfodder (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep per the vast amount of non-trivial news coverage and exceedingly high Alexa ranking, not to mention content deals with the likes of NBC Universal and Showtime. Too many single purpose accounts and WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes here to stomach. Burntsauce 20:30, 29 March 2007 (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.