Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HardwareLogic

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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HardwareLogic

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

No assertion of this forum's notability per WP:WEB. It claims to be popular, without providing any statistics or reliable sources where the forum has been mentioned. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, and I can't find any. Alex rank of 255,907. A Google search and a Googlelink search don't persuade me of notability under WP:WEB either. Good luck to them in getting there, though. William Pietri 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Will change vote to Strong Keep if they agree to make me a mod on their forums. My Alt Account 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Register and we'll talk to the boss about it - that is, if you're a man of your word =P Yurimxpxman 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all...I understand people have the right to edit content as this is an "open source"...but I take serious issue with someone editing the description of my site, talking about is financial status (which is inaccurate, and to be completely honest no ones business), and someone's demand that they want the content deleted unless they are made a moderator of my forums. A basic Alexa search of our site notes a ranking of 190,000 (we all know Alexa is worthless) and for a site thats been active 9 months, we are doing quite well. I find it comical that someone (who obviously has an alterior motive here) has taken the time to find my site, and ask for its deletion. I also take issue with th editing done. The page was obviously hacked as content was deleted and inaccurate information, and blatant lies were posted. I also take strong exception to people demanding to be made mods of our site.....There is absolutely nothing being sold on HL, and in fact we only exist to help people make good buying decisions—the preceding comment is by 70.189.173.65 - 03:19, 13 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

I hate ruining my own joke this way, but... I was joking when I offered to change my vote in exchange for modship. My Alt Account 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. We are not discussing the discussion of the deletion of your site, just the article on Wikipedia. As Yurimxpxman recognized, My Alt Account was kidding when he offered to change his vote; we'd tar and feather him if he actually did something like that. And Alexa rank when you're that low is pretty volatile; it's now at 272,631. Although I assume good faith, it's not impossible that the nominator had some sinister motive for this. But that's why we have this review process. I'm glad you're feeling you're doing well, and encourage you to keep it up. I hope you'll be wildly successful so that one day your site clearly qualifies under WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Regards, William Pietri 03:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL..."I'm glad you feel you're doing well"...talk about a condescending attitude......ridiculous that a site dedicated to helping people, and not making money, can be deleted....—the preceding comment is by 70.189.173.65 - 03:43, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

Hi. No condescension was meant; sorry if I came across the wrong way. William Pietri 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

also, type "HardwareLogic" into google, and you'll see over 24,000 hits......not too bad for 9 months work

I also like the qualifications of the persons who have listed the site for deletion....not a single person who has any knowledge or experience pertinent to the site or its content....... —the preceding comment is by 70.189.173.65 - 07:11, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

  • Commment for my fellow pedants and nosey-parkers: the anonymous commenters have made a number of edits to existing comments [1] [2] [3] that are technically improper but seem to be well-meant, so I'm letting them stand. William Pietri 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (and Strong Keep) It's interesting that the general concensus thus far is that HardwareLogic fails WP:WEB (Notability), but one of the criteria (and only one needs to be met) is that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." HardwareLogic's content is, in fact, distributed via online publishers that are both well known and independent of the creators. Some examples include [H]ardOCP, PlanetAMD64, PCStats, TechReport, ReviewsHQ, ViperLair, Bjorn3D, TechPowerUp, TechArp, TheInquirer, MadShrimps, NTCompatible, and a number of other well known tech sites to the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) PC community. All one needs to do is Google some of the reviews posted on HardwareLogic and a list of multiple independent sites appear. Taking that into consideration, this clearly should qualify under #3 in the WP:WEB criteria. —the preceding comment is by HL Supporter

Is it possible to find out who edited our content before we were nominated for deletion? I'd be interested in finding out who vandalized our site and added dishonest and inaccurate content

That's what that history tab on the top of the page is for. If something is wrong, just fix it. BTW, do you see why find it odd that you don't know about checking page history, but you do feel qualified to argue about whether or not wikipedia policy suggests that HardwareLogic should be deleted? Why don't you stick around the place for a while, and learn the ins and outs, before you accuse so many people of bad faith? My Alt Account 07:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep i personally believe that hardawrelogic is a legitimate Wikipedia entry as is clearly meets the following criteria:

1. the entry clearly meets the first entry in the Wikipedia criteria for web content which states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4] Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." To prove my point, do a Google search for any of the hardware that the site has reviewed in the past 9 months and you will get thousands of hits of reviews. that clearly falls under "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms"

2. The entry also meets the third requirement under the Wikipedia criteria for web content which states the following: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." planet amd64, tech report reviewshq.com and the modding den have all posted links of HardwareLogic's work on their site. In fact if your feeling froggy, do a search for a review for the Seasonic M12-500 modular power supply. HardwareLogic is the ONLY site that has currently reviewed this piece of hardware (as of September 13th 2006)

In closing I believe that this was a direct attack on HardwareLogic's credibility as an honest home-grown review site for the beggining computer enthusiast. I feel that this was purpotrated by a larger and more influential site that has began to lose ground and its credibility in the begginer's audience. Such attacks are childish and only prove the maturity level of "other" sites.

To those who support us, we thank you for your continued support and dedication to the HardwareLogic community. —the preceding comment is by 65.191.49.254 - 07:48, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

  • Strong Keep I cannot believe someone on wikipedia would do this. Completely ublievable/
  • Strong Keep While I don't claim to know the ins and outs of wiki editing I find it difficult to believe that so much attention and discussion has ensued over such a harmless wiki page. Regargless of whether it "qualifies" according to these statutes written in legalese, who cares? It's not hurting anything. It's just a biography of a review website. The only people that should really care at all about it are the creators and members of the site. To be honest,and though I don't speak for everyone, I don't think it really matters if this page gets deleted or not, it's neither helping nor hurting us. What gauls me is the fact that people will expend so much effort into either discrediting us or removing us entirely from here. To me it seems that the wikipedia community is less focused on being an open vessel for knowledge as much as it is a contest to see who has a better grasp of the "policies and guidelines." 71.70.182.15 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Drew-and-not-U
  • Strong Keep If a site is going to be deleted, let's make sure some of those [i]really[/i] crappy sites get booted, not Hardware Logic.

13sep06 whitecree@yahoo.ca

This is a very good site for beginners such as myself. I fail to see the logic in deleting this site. There is a active community and reviews of the latest hardware available. JokerHL 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

HardawreLogic is like most all the other computer enthusiast review sites on the internet in the sense that it reviews computer hardware not for profit, but for the education of readers. HardwareLogic, however, focuses on helping beginners get their feet wet in computers as a hobby, or just to help answer questions for someone with a problem. Computer enthusiasts of all levels gather in the forum community to discuss the review articles, guides, and whatever else may be relevant technology. I see no reason why HardwareLogic should be deleted if the other other "identical" sites are allowed to stay. 66.227.222.173 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)HL patron

No. Those review sites are NOT identical in that they're each about 100x bigger than HardwareLogic. If HardwareLogic rises to the same kind of prominence those sites have, it, too, will have an article. Hope this makes sense. If not, read WP:WEB. My Alt Account 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So it's not the content and criteria that matter, but the 'size' of the site? I don't know, on my monitor, both HardwareLogic and those others look the same size. Or if by 'size' you're referring to popularity, then where in the WP:WEB does it state a specific hit count for a site to eligible? My interpretation of the WP:WEB is that there are content requirements, not popularity requirements...HL Supporter

Thanks for registering; that makes things easier to follow. They are notability requirements, not content requirements. Popularity is different than notability, but related: reliable sources tend to cover things that are popular more than those that are obscure. This is unfortunate; you can look at John Kennedy Toole to see how fickle fame and notability can be. Had events gone only a little differently, his Pulitzer-winning novel could have been lost forever. On Wikipedia we don't document things that should be notable, but only those that have been noted sufficiently that we have enough reliable sources from which we can verify the information that we provide to our readers. I hope that helps. William Pietri 00:48, 14 September 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.