Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECRUSH

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ECRUSH

Appears to be nothing more than elaborate link spam. Only edits so far have been by two anon users who were also involved in DoYouDo (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo). RoySmith 12:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I can't decide. Alexa rank is quite high (34,229) and it gets a ton of googles (22,900 - 633 unique)[1]. Plus this is ELABORATE linkspam if it is such. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ad. Dlyons493 12:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete alexa rank higher than most we see here at VfD, but not so high that it can squak by just on that alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- If this is an ad, it's an awful one. Linking to a website in an article about that website is normal. I remember this website being in the news toward the end of the dot-com era (and the references section seems to confirm that). Giving alexa the benefit of the doubt because I'm not sure how popular their toolbar is amongst the teen set this website targets. — mendel ☎ 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• The article cites plenty of independent news coverage in its references. (I applaud and encourage the two anonymous users mentioned by RoySmith for their work in citing sources. To those editors: If all of your contributions are going to be explicitly sourced right from the start like this, please give us more of them.) This satisfies both the WP:WEB and the WP:CORP criteria. Keep. Uncle G 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Our policy against using Wikipedia for commercial purposes doesn't mean that we can't have good coverage of businesses. This company touches many people's lives, and some of them might turn to Wikipedia to learn more about it. JamesMLane 07:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, first link indicates the Wall Street Journal thought it worth covering. Kappa 00:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and it's connection with DoYouDo, as well as internal wikispamming, and this user's attempts to alter existing guidelines convince me that it is advertising. On Alexa - This website's target demographic matches Alexa toolbar uptake, skewing the numbers. Alexa should only be trusted for two things: Super high = not notable, super low = notable. The entire middle ground is hogwash. For an actual example, see this reference. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh, so we are supposed to leave articles as orphans rather than linking relevant articles, such as dating system, to them? What criteria are you using for classifying that normal activity as internal wikispamming? It's just your own assumption of bad faith. I agree with you about Alexa, though. By the way, to be fair, Plugwash made a similar edit to Wikipedia:Spam. See [2]. You unilaterally reverted both back. 24.54.208.177 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment(s). Just to be pedantic:
  1. Both WP:WEB and WP:CORP are only proposed guidelines, which eCRUSH still fails.
  2. Re:WP:WEB, the "Wall street Journal" link is a very small article in a ZdNet repost of an article from the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition. This is a very very low hurdle compared to appearing in the print version of WSJ. Do we have any evidence major media coverage? E.g. "off-line sources of news such as newpapers and national broadcasters."
  3. Re:WP:CORP, I'm not seeing how eCRUSH qualifies?

brenneman^(t)(c) 05:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the anon is spamming links to this page all over the place. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that true? I see only four articles in the main namespace linking to this one. 24.54.208.177 03:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written and sourced article about something which seems to have gotten a significant bit of media coverage. If this is spam, then I wish all spammers would go to this much effort. Gamaliel 04:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I'm starting to sound a bit shrill here, but is this really what we're calling "significant [...] media coverage"? North Andover, MA? An Independent Daily Newspaper from Ohio University? I'd also point out that those citations appear to be purposefully deceptive. For example: Mieszkowski, Katharine. "The Bot Who Loved Me", Salon, 2002-08-09.  Did this article actually appear on Salon? It doesn't appear so as it's on AltNet, however Mieszkowski also writes for Salon. This is not good form, it's bad for the encyclopedia. If we keep this article based upon this performance, we're rewarding it to our detriment.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The AltNet article credits it to "Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon" so I can't see that anyone is being deceptive. Kappa 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If Max Hunter writes political analysis articles for the New York Post and then submits a two-paragraph article in my local high school newsletter, it's deceptive to put Hunter, Max. "Hair today, gone tomorrow", New York Post, 2002-04-01.  This article did actually appear in Salon, so I'll replace "deceptive" with "lazy", and offer a weak semblance of an apology to the user when his block expires. Still no evidence of "significant coverage".
      brenneman^(t)(c) 01:02, 30 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.