Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epinions.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The result was Speedy Keep and rename, nom also withdrawn per all agreeing. Article has already been moved to Epinions SynergeticMaggot 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epinions.com

Article only valuable as advertisement and propaganda for the aforemention website. meatclerk 06:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I really don't see much advertising/propaganda in the article, and I'd say it passes any notability test. BigHaz 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's notable, but nothing valuable to the article. The article describes mostly how to use the website and how it might be better than the competition. Nothing of social value exists. Hence, delete it. meatclerk 06:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't quite see what you're getting at here. The article probably goes into a bit more detail about the site than is strictly necessary, but that's hardly grounds to delete - it's grounds to get the article listed for a cleanup. Additionally, I'd defy anyone to write an article on any website without including "how to use the website" and "how it might be better than the competition" (for the record, I'm of the belief that the latter can be done in an NPOV manner). BigHaz 09:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and rename to Epinions. 1 reference to the website in San Francisco Chronicle, and another article in the same paper several months later mentions the company behind the website. Needs rewrite to focus on its notability, though. Kimchi.sg 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - this is a highly trafficked website, and I agree with BigHaz in not seeing significantly problematic text. While a cleanup may help, listing it for AfD because someone may have inserted some POV material doesn't make sense. Could you be more specific about what you see as "propaganda"? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Material disseminated by the advocates --meatclerk 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't have a definition in mind; I know what "propaganda" means. I was looking for some specific quotes or diffs. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I'm tempted to think this is a joke--the subject is almost certainly notable, being fairly popular and having been featured in several verifiable sources. A re-write wouldn't hurt, I'd agree, but from the Talk page it doesn't look like much discussion or work went into doing so before this nomination. -- H·G (words/works) 07:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely a notable and high traffic website. Voice of Treason 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
AT issue is not the website, the website definitely has note. This article is far below par. A cleanup might yield 2 sentences, at best. --meatclerk 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - If that's the issue, you should suggest or start clean-up then, and work up from there. Deleting the page whole from the system is no kind of fix. Voice of Treason 09:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and rename article should be called "Epinions" per WP convention, I think. Cleanup consists of erasing most of the article. Alternatively, delete so someone can start over without prejudice. Epinions is definitely a notable site but this article is mostly advert. Phr (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No Vote, because of a conflict of interest. However, I don't see anything in particular that needs to be removed in re the {{cleanup}} tag, other than the last paragraph, which seems to consist entirely of unsourced praise of Ciao.com and mouthshut.com. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No Vote, because of a conflict of interest. I put this article up for deletion. The website in question is of some note. Definitely better article than the other in the Category:Reward_websites. Even so, a look at the logs shows the article not having a champion. That is, for this article to be of any worth we need to answer the question, "why is this of any worth?". None has been shown, no one seems to want to it either. As for the comments on "how to" please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information No.9 --meatclerk 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Meat you can't vote on your own nomination. Regards Supposed 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I would think every keep vote indicates an editor who wants to keep this article and considers it of worth. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Strong keep following move as the target of this AfD is now a redirect. Certainly a notable website. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not a speedy, or any AfD could be sidetracked by moving the article. All comments except those specifically dealing with the name should still be valid. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point, except that so far no one has voted delete (and even the original nominator, meatclerk, seems to be unsure on his opinion of deletion of the article). However I have changed my wording, pending an official rescinding of the nomination. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't see any reason at all to remove this article. Supposed 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, popular site. *Dan T.* 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Someone has stepped up to clear all issues with all articles relates to Category:Reward_websites meatclerk 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawal of AfD if all agree, and the person stepping up agrees in some time frame to fix, else we will be back in a sometime. meatclerk 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking to close the AfD early? It's not entirely clear what you're saying. AfD's aren't a bargaining process where "if this happens, then I'll change my vote", but rather a discussion to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia at all. If it's change you're looking for — say, to reword a part that you feel reads like an advert rather than an article — then you'll have better look bringing it up on the article's talk page, using a tag like {{cleanup}}, or another non-deletion process. If you'd like to change your comments, however, just strikeout the old ones (but don't remove them) and voice your new opinions here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole idea of deleting an article on a top 20 /50 /100 (whatever) website is ridiculous. This article is plagued by editors with an pro- and anti- epinions agenda, that's all. If that's a big problem, delete all articles on all political parties right now! The formal suggestion to delete is using a nuke to swat a fly, and quite frankly abuse of the power to call for delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.7.90 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Calm down, please. It seems to have been a good faith effort to get the article cleaned up or deleted from its apparently advertising-based format, and that's being accomplished. AfD is the nuclear option of cleanup, but that's no reason to start crying "abuse of power". 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable site with verifiable external references. --Elonka 18:16, 25 July 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.