Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawdle

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. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawdle

Dawdle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nom - speedied several times. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. This new website simply isn't notable. However, its creator doesn't seem to "get it", so I thought an AfD might provide a more suitable forum for the discussion. Rklawton (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails to claim notability, and the only references are brief press releases stating the company was launched. Jeodesic (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The sources are not reliable. They are either social networking website or non notable press releases which are just advertising about Dawdle (WP:WEB - Exceptions)----NAHID 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. I feel auctionbytes and prweb are fairly reliable, its not like i am posting digg as a source.
  • Keep. My only problem is that I browse though your articles and many are less notable than this. So i don't see why this can't fall in that catagory or higher. If you delete this i feel that wikipedia needs to go through all their articles becuase there notability is not high either too.Emargul (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)— Emargul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
also its a stub so stubs i don't feel go under the notability rules as much becuase more could be added.Emargul (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - please make a list of these articles as you find them. I will be happy to delete them as well. Rklawton (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • replyI have only been apart of wikipedia for 2 days, and i decided to join becuase i thought i have always wanted to be on wikipedia and this article could give me a chance to at least be seen. I have not had exact time to edit. But i already know what my next edit is. Cyclins the image is incorrect cyclin D is only in the G1 phase.
  • Delete per everything above. The author seems to think that "notability" is something that refers to the article rather than its subject. eaolson (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert for non-notable website. Speedy would have been justified. Hammer1980·talk 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Very young non notable auction website. Dawdle is an old scottish word, meaning to walk slowly, aimlessly, with no purpose. scope_creep (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. It may be young, but every website desearves a chance. Its a company that has become some part of our history, even a small amount and it could become a large part. People look up to you guys at wikipedia. And if you are biased against the small companies starting out than there is a large problem. Everyone had to start somewhere like you. In addition, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a news stand, so what is going on in the news should not have an affect on the article. This article made its dent, it has sources to prove it is true. It could do something more. It desearves to be in this encyclopedia. Also what does the dictionary term have to do with it staying or not.Emargul (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sure, your website deserves a chance. When it succeeds, we will be happy to have an article on it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd just like to gently point out to the author that Wikipedia isn't here to give your favorite website "a chance." We're here to identify and explain already-existing phenomena of significance. Just-started websites don't meet that criteria for significance. Wikipedia isn't a web directory like Yahoo or a search engine like Google. eaolson (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reply. First of all its not my favorite website, second of all i am not apart of it, third of all i stumbled upon it, fourth of all it was launched, i don't understand your criteria, no where does it state started websites arn't notable, it did something notable, it is doing notable things. Finnally i made it a stub, so as it does more it can be added and what is needed to be added can be added. You website encourges me to make a stub so people can build on it, so i do it. Now build on it don't delete it.Emargul (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every website deserves a chance to try to survive and thrive as a business. However, please understand that Wikipedia is not here to promote businesses or to "give them a chance." There are standards or notability for what can be included in Wikipedia. Without this, Wikipedia would, at best, be no more than a directory of every website in existence or, at worst, a meaningless collection of junk. --Crunch (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

This has been done on gamesharks, auctionbytes, gamenews, and prweb. All were independent, that makes this site notable. If you continue to say it isn't than you are breaking your own rules.Emargul (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See also reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
reply the sources are not unreliable, they are trustworthy, i understand they arn't some published paper. However, most stuff isn't actually published beyond that. Prweb is a online news company, as is auction bytes. So dawdle was notable enough to get on there, it should be for here.Emargul (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment.PRWeb is simply a venue where people can submit their own press releases that they write themselves, which is what has been done here. AuctionByte is a trade journal for the online auction industry. The citation there is just an announcement of a new business. These do not meat the criteria for notability cited in WP:CORP. --Crunch (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable 2-week-old website. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

fine delete the thing, there isn't a way i can convince you so just delete it.

  • Delete - Although I did some research, I could not find any evidence of notability or history of this company. Of course, the company is less than a month old. What I did find were reliable sources that confirmed the existence of the company. That alone, does not guarantee an article's "keep-ability". I did update the article page with the references, but it's probably in vein, as I myself found content lacking in the life of this company. It's a shame, as the idea of a website escrow and purveyor is a solid business plan and it would have been interesting to see how Dawdle would attack such service intensive industry. The author should have waited until after the holiday season. -- Emana (talk) 09:45, 23 November 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.