Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet
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 Keep. IrishGuy talk 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kinnernet
Non-notable event. All contributors are brand new users. woggly 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD page is now the subject of headline screed at Freerepublic: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1797584/posts] Ethan Mitchell 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That Freerepublic article by Joel Leyden seems to be a little harsh on the nominator for nominating a page that looks like a spammy advertisement. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured something like that would happen. Joel Leyden is banned user:Israelbeach and I "strongly suspected" all the contributors to the Kinnernet article were his sockpuppets, as well he knows. He likes spreading nasty comments about me and Wikipedia for the Google search engines to find, heaven knows he's done it before. But if the Wikipedia community deems the article notable, that's good enough for me. --woggly 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That Freerepublic article by Joel Leyden seems to be a little harsh on the nominator for nominating a page that looks like a spammy advertisement. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems real enough and of some notability, but the article as it stands at the moment is decidedly spammy, and as such it's no surprise that anyone should think it was a puff-piece for a non-notable event. This needs a massive cleanup to reach the style which Wikipedia articles are meant to aspire to - we are not an "infotainment" site or bulletin board, we are an encyclopedia. I'll attempt a start to the cleanup, but more work is welcome. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Looks much better now, Grutness. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They may not often be right, but they are about this one: notice in that same posting the quote from The Times (London). DGG 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As per above comments Kinnernetgal 12:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's an event. But the tactics here are worrisome. In particular, posting a vanity article at FR rather than engaging with the Wikipedia AfD process seems like bad faith. Especially given that the article is phrased in terms of attacking wikipedia, not defending the article. And...Kinnernetgal, is this your very first post? Ethan Mitchell 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- See above - apparently the user is banned so cannot participate. Would some kind admin please unblock him so that he can comment here - seems only fair.--Osidge 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no block on Kinnernetgal, nor was there ever. Check the block log. --woggly 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I assume that Osidge means Joel Leyden, as he is the person being accused of posting elsewhere rather than here, not Kinnernetgal!--R613vlu 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no block on Kinnernetgal, nor was there ever. Check the block log. --woggly 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- See above - apparently the user is banned so cannot participate. Would some kind admin please unblock him so that he can comment here - seems only fair.--Osidge 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Fine for a stub, if the event continues it can only grow in time - Denny 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see how this is a notable event. Kolindigo 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a notable conference and deserves an article.--Newport 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At the risk of being accused of original research, I know that this is an important event. Deleting the article would make Wikipedia ridiculous.--Osidge 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As per comments above Mhltv 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep On the evidence, it's clearly notable. What if the authors are relatively new? WP:BITE.--R613vlu 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - SPA isn't a policy. Anyway, let's judge the article on its own merits.--R613vlu 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It looks more like badly referenced spam than an actual article. One (1) Times article isn't going to cut it as references (note the plural). Actual references from reliable sources and actual descriptions of it being notable, of course, will sway my decision. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a second one. It's often easier to fix an article than debate why it should be kept or deleted. Grutness...wha? 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is not at all a reliable source. I've explained why on your talk page. --woggly 09:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Times is probably the World's most respected newspaper. Can anyone seriously maintain that its testimony should be dismissed as spam?--R613vlu 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification: I was referring to the "Israel News Agency", not to the Times.--woggly 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a second one. It's often easier to fix an article than debate why it should be kept or deleted. Grutness...wha? 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete spammy, no evidence of notability. Where are the multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the event and its promoters? The world is absolutely full of events like this, and almost none of them are of any independently provable importance. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- From both Wikipedia and a simple Google search, tt is evident that both you and Woggly are in deep dispute with anything that is associated with Israelbeach. Therefore your judgement is highly subjective. As said above, statements are made about Israelbeach and he does not even have an opportunity to comment and defend his ations. The three of you should disqualify yourselves from any votes of articles that have any association with one another. Also, to discredit the Israel News Agency is to discredit the Israeli government as they are the ones who screen and issue press credentials. You both also discredit Google and Google News which are used as a measures of reference here at Wikipedia. Let's focus on the 200 + global Internet gurus attending Kinnernet, the majority of "keep" votes above and not on personalities and politics. Thanks. Mhltv 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Kinnernet is a vital conference that allows industry leaders from internet related fields such as site building, blogs, forums, social networks, chat rooms, instant messages, P2P and search engines to meet and develope ideas and stratagies. It is an important meeting discussing the future of the internet,and needs to be covered. There are industry leaders coming, and to say the conferance is unimportant is to say the participants are unimportant. Co-founder Yossi Vardi does not invite the press so as not to distrub the particpants, but the conferance's importance is evident from the Times article and the hundreds of blogs. I hope this is not evident of Wikipedia's recent anti-Israel shift.Greendesk 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- This nom. received the coverage it deserved. Haven't we learned anything from some recent AfDs on matters or people showing WP in a bad light? DGG 00:58, 14 March 2007 (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.
