Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Blasphemy

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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Blasphemy

Advertisment Sascha.leib 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What a farce! Oh everybody is falling all over themselves to keep this page!! Laugh me out the door and DELETE this article page!! Delete Digital Blasphemy and delete waldo's wallpaper too! A sock puppet for "wallpaper vault". Elmo Skidright.

This is an advertising page for one out of a thousand commercial "Desktop Wallpaper" sites. There is no need to give them free advertising space on Wikipedia.

In addition, somebody (presumably somebody from the company) has instantly removed unfavourable additions (like, references to free desktop wallpaper sites) and even unfavourable comments.

• Delete Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I think the site should be deleted as per policy about a site that is commercial and contains advertising - they are a spam site seeking piggyback exposure. Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert --Tone 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC). Ok, changed my mind. Keep but cleanup. --Tone 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. The sooner the better. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep It is a notable internet wallpaper design company (perhaps the most notable given the poor example of a google search, 998,000 for "digital blasphemy"). Sure, wikipedia is not for advertising. But an outline of their contribution to internet and general computer life would sufficient. Ansell 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep they are notable enough by my bar. I'm really tired of seeing that blue, translucent mushroom wallpaper though. Kotepho 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep fairly old notable site with a long history on the internet. Here's a link to a posible reference: Interview with creater, Also about 1200 pages link to DB according to Google. As wallpaper websites go, it's the premier in it's field. ---J.Smith 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am the somebody who removed those references to other sites (no idea what unfavorable comments you are referring to though); these were unrelated linkspam. See Wikipedia:External links. Digital Blasphemy is a notable (enough) site. It has been around for nine years (since 1997), and was visited 25681 times yesterday alone. The article mentions a specific claim to notability that satisifies #3 on our Criteria for web content, the use of the wallpapers in Stardock's The Natural Desktop. Nevertheless, I have contacted Ryan Bliss, the owner of the site, asking for more information that satisfies the points on Wikipedia:Notability (websites), and will post it here and in the article as soon as he replies. ~MDD4696 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Ryan...

Date: Apr 13, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia

Hello Ryan,

I am an editor on Wikipedia, a site I'm sure you have heard of. The
article on Digital Blasphemy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Blasphemy) was nominated for
deletion today, and I was wondering if you could provide me with any
information that would help me prevent that.

Have you had any interviews or reviews of the site by independant
sources, such as newspapers? Are there any well-known websites or
other organizations that have used your images?

I think that your site is fantastic, and most certainly notable enough
for an article on Wikipedia. However, if we have links or references
to published sources that reference your work, it will make the
article stronger.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Michael

...and he promptly replied:

Date: Apr 14, 2006 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia

Hi Michael,

Thanks for writing.  I had seen the article on Wikipedia a while ago and
thought it was interesting.  Flattering to be included.

Not sure what I can tell you.  My site was named one of the Top 100 sites on
the web by Yahoo Internet Life magazine (now defunct) back in Dec 2000.
I've been mentioned on BBC World (on the Webscape segment) and was mentioned
many times on Tech TVs "The Screensavers".   I had a write up in my hometown
paper, and I'm sure I've been written about in other papers but I can't
think of any specific examples.  To my knowledge, I run one of the most
popular "single artist" galleries online.

The accolades and free press sort of stopped not long after I opened the
members gallery.  Once you start charging for your content, people are more
reluctant to site you as an "online resource".  It's just the nature of the
game I guess.

I'm happy to be included in Wikipedia, but I'll understand if the article
gets deleted.  Let me know if you need anything else.

--
Ryan Bliss
Digital Blasphemy
http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/

~MDD4696 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep; Digital Blasphemy is one of the best (subjectively) and oldest wallpaper sites on the Internet.  RasputinAXP  c 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the solid grounds of "if I've heard of it outside of Wikipedia it's got to be notable", especially if a) I first heard of the site wayyy back when they were starting up in late 1990s and b) I've seen their wallpapers on completely random computers a few times... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment adverts are generally writen by the companies themselves, not by outside observers. This was originally written as an article. Ojw 17:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep; I have been a visitor to Digital Blasphemy for many years. I think this site has value, proven by the long history of free content and quality of work. By keeping this site in Wikipedia, newbies will be able to access it as well. --Shagy 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As above Trebor 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the use by a software product meets notability criterion 3 of WP:WEB. But on looking at Natural Desktop, that page looks to me to be part of a massive wikispam campaign around Stardock products. The Stardock article is ridiculously long for a minor company, and there are separate articles for dozens of its products. That by itself probably needs some attention and a big merge. I'd also like to know more about the exact relationship between Digital Blasphemy and Stardock. One should not be able to manufacture notability by linking to related products within Wikipedia. Phr 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 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.