Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeones

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. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freeones

• Delete - Advert/not encyclopedic - added along with external links to it by other article solely to support the website. User contributing has no other unrelated edits. -Tεxτurε 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The creating user's edits for the day:
    • 16:56, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Dalene Kurtis (→External links)
    • 16:56, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Crystal Klein (→External links)
    • 16:51, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Internet pornography (→External links)
    • 16:46, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Sky Lopez
    • 16:43, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Briana Banks (→External links)
    • 16:40, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Jenna Jameson (→External links)
    • 16:31, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Freeones Logo.jpg (→Summary) (top)
    • 16:28, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeones (Added logo)
    • 16:22, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Freeones Logo.jpg (http://www.freeones.com/)
    • 16:06, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeones (Creation)
• DELETE ad FRS 22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These sites are a dime a dozen and I don't see anything to suggest this one is any more notable than the others. 23skidoo 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa rating of 561, but the site appears to be nothing more than a link repository, and tactics this user is employing to advertise his website (because there's no other word for what he's doing) are just not christmas. Delete as advertising and remove external links from all pages this user has added the website to. Saberwyn 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain in light of JM.Beaubourg's argument, but I still consider it supicious that the user creates an article on a website, then goes and adds the website's external link to a number of pages, resulting in the sum total of his/her contributions. Saberwyn 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. tregoweth 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Any reference to any website here on Wikipedia could be considered advertising, so it's quite a lame reason. So the question would remain whether this website warrants an entry in an encyclopedia. Since Freeones is one of the largest and also longest-living site of its kind, featuring original content and normally biographical data on its featured actresses, centerfolds, musicians, porn stars, sportswomen, supermodels and TV hosts (these are the categories by which one can sort the entries), which can (and will) be used as sources to enter/verify information on Wikipedia. For both reason I strongly support keeping this entry.

Additionally I should point out that judging someone's work by unrelated contributions is a bit useless if the registered (!) user has only started contributing. The fellow has made his first contribution on November 2nd, which was just about 5 hours before his article was marked for deletion (which is not the point here - my reasoning for keeping was argued above) and his contribution history was used as an argument against the article - thus being ad hominem (including the fact that the list at the beginning of this discussion was claimed by User:Texture to be the creating user's edits for the day which is just the half-truth; as I already mentioned, it's his first contribution to Wikipedia ever, see Special:Contributions/CWonroy). JM.Beaubourg 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In judging whether a website and immediate links to it in other articles are spam and not real what do we have to use as a guide? Every day that passes where this user makes no other contributions furthers a simple belief that this was a spam attack. New users do not solely add one website to many articles and perform no other edits. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It took me 2 days and three hours to make further contributions after adding the first article, and the following edits were pretty much related to my first contributions. All I'm saying is, that this is not considered a valid argument. And if this were a spam attack, then it took the folks at Freeones an astounding four years (well I don't know the exact date when Wikipedia was set up), as Freeones was started in 1998. I feel like Wikipedia can also be used describe the functions of internet business, of which sex-related website make an important part (I mean: who owns what, what practices do they use - so it can also be used as a critical guide). JM.Beaubourg 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, according to Herr Schönburg's rationale. I urge CWonroy to continue contributing to WP. Olessi 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH FREEONES or their webmasters or anything; If I was, I think I probably would have been versed enough to make a more detailed entry. Second, I can see why my contributions have raised suspicions since they are the only contributions I made in that time frame and they did all relate. I guess that's fair game for debate (although unintended). But JM.Beaubourg raised a good point and it leads me to ask, would it have been better if I would have interspersed my contributions with other random contributions to make the more diversified? I don't think that's a requirement.

By the way, if you look at the Sky Lopez revision history, you will find that in addition to adding the Freeones link, I fixed a caption error at the top of the article. When Texturε reverted my edit back to the previous version, the caption error remained. Another user, Brim has since fixed the caption error.

If you look at the Crystal Klein article's revision history as well, you find another mistake by Texturε. Without comparing the article's history with my edit, he reverted back to the original article. The Freeones link was already there, and what I did was (1) Add a link to the new Freeones Article and (2) add Warning: Contains links to explicit material. to the link. It did not exist when I edited the article, and therefore it did not exist when Texturε reverted it back.

The same can be seen in the Dalene Kurtis article history where the Freeones link already existed and I just added a link to the Freeones article.

This is all just to show that we can all make mistakes and is not an attack on anybody. It also shows that even if insignificant, I did actually make other contributions.

Anyway, I strongly feel that this entry, in and of itself, is okay as encyclopedic material. As for the links I created on the other articles, delete them if you have to as that is where the real debate lies.

On a side note, consider that the website for Gibson Research Corporation is listed on Wikipedia and it's Alexa rating is currently 17867 [1]. Then that raises the question, is the Alexa website ranking the determiner for encyclopedic material?; of course not. But, considering how many websites are ranked by Alexa, 561 has to be somewhat significant. Howstuffworks is ranked 1086 [2] which surprised me. And lastly, WebMD is 622 [3].

I am sorry for the trouble I have caused, and I hope the issue resolves itself. Thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. –CWonroy.

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.