Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koptalk

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 of the debate was speedy deleted as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koptalk

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Article on on Liverpool Football Club fansite. Fails all three criteria listed WP:WEB. Although only 3 days old, the article has become an edit-war between members self-promoting the site e.g. Www koptalk com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and its detractors (mainly over its subscriber content) from a blog at koptalkinsider.wordpress.com who also spam the site with links to rival fan sites. Is any of this encyclopedia-worthy at all? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Editors, beware of the sockpuppets: http://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/2006/07/09/should-koptalk-be-removed-from-wikipedia --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Does not meet the guideline for inclusion of websites, nor the policy on verification. While this has some association with arguably the most important football club in the world, notability doesn't "rub off" that easily. A google search yeilds zero "news" hits. While it does generate 718 unique hits, I was unable to find any that were from reliable sources. In the absence of any verifiable third party coverage that demonstrates the notability of this site, I must recomend deletion.}} - brenneman {L} 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Constructive criticism is fine but when an article is created purely to disrupt it destroys a fantastic free resource in Wikipedia. Any independent person should be able to identify between what is a genuine article be it positive or not and an article created to cause nothing but damage. www_koptalk_com 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Don't want this article to be deleted, but even if it is, we'll document Oldham in some other way. It's only a matter of time before he's caught. Whether it's the Inland Revenue inspectors, the Charity Commission or the police, I'm not really bothered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.221.6 (talk • contribs)


  • Strongly oppose - Some of the edits that have taken place in the short time since this entry was added seem to have been done in the first instance by the owner of the site in question, then by others to counter what he is adding. I'm sure it isn't the first wikipedia article that started life under a cloud of controversy, but it is a controversial subject.

First of all, I'm quite new to the rules for Wikipedia entries, so please bear with me if I make any incorrect assumptions.

I feel the article is needed on Wikipedia, but perhaps under a different heading. I'll try and explain.

Mr Duncan Oldham is becoming quite a personality in his own right. He's certainly done enough over the years to be allowed an entry on Wikipedia (in my view). A carefully-written article on all of these sometimes newsworthy items would be worth adding to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, many of Mr Oldham's activities are controversial. However surely as long as they are all cited there should be no problem in them being included, whether positive or negative. In positive terms, Mr Oldham has claimed to carry out a lot of work for charity for example, some newspaper articles could perhaps be added by him to prove this. He's also claimed to be the instigator / creator of the first UK Liverpool FC newsgroup. His Koptalk site is effectively a more up-to-date use of technology. Although Mr Oldham isn't a famous personality as such, he's certainly infamous amongst supporters of Liverpool Football Club and with his involvement in websites promoting other soccer teams and also football in general (I can list these if required) then it's safe to say his infamy may also have spread within those communities.

He's known for a lot of things both good and bad. For example he once changed his name to "Mr Manchester United" by deed poll, something which made the national newspapers of the time if I'm not mistaken.

On the controversial side there is (citable) evidence that Mr Oldham has engaged in a long line of dubious activities. The blog mentioned has got a lot of the evidence included, but there is also evidence to be found on the Way-back Machine (archive.org).

Mr Oldham is Koptalk essentially - his "team" seems to consist of his family members, and as such perhaps a seperate Koptalk entry is overkill and merely a redirect would be needed.

There's no need to "spam" with links to other sites, but it did prove a point that other websites are more popular (or they were at the time I compared them after seeing them listed in the article).

So when I say "strongly oppose" I feel that rather than a deletion a rename and slight rewrite would be more in order.

If the Wikipedia policy is to remove entries on people who are controversial then yes, remove the entry, but I am sure that's not the case. It's certainly an interesting article to have in the enyclopedia, but careful monitoring is needed to ensure it is neutral with all claims cited. --Whatthef 15:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment From what I've seen, it's not a notable website, and the article should be deleted. However [1] claims that it has been reported on in the Daily Star (not a credible source), and The Independent (a credible source) as well as other "media giants". It does sound like it was trivial coverage, rather than anything substantial, but it may not be. I'd tend towards deleting the article, but I'd like to see what this coverage is. Also, it's a shame that the article is being used both to air grievances, rather than just report on criticism, and to promote the owner's own website by blanking the criticism, and manipulating the external links. Hopefully this AfD will manage to keep to the topic of whether or not the website is notable or not. KeithD 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: Its in the interest of free speech that each side of the argument/view should be aired. Deleting this thread would not allow neutral people to come to their own conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.128.217 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete This doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOV, and looks to these eyes as a thinly veiled attack page. --DarkAudit 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As you can tell by people who 'strongly oppose' this is just a personal attack on someone they don't like. I'm sure it's possible to have a balanced entry on Koptalk..... or may be not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.2.185 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia should eradicate reference to Koptalk - I think it is an interesting case of how a single individual using the net can exploit a respected institution like LFC and exploit its world wide followers. But to give a full picture Wikepeida should not lend credence to Koptalk's false claims and it should link to the sites of others especially koptalk-insider which is a dedicated not-for-profit site set up to expose Koptalk.

The testimonial to Koptalk from major newspapers - The Independent, for example - was given many years ago when Koptalk was, indeed, one of the most populated LFC sites simply because they were early days of the net and there were very few about. Oldham had engineered the takeover of Koptalk from the original creator. Most of that generation of members left Koptalk to open new sites. Mainly they disliked that Koptalk had been converted from a discussion site about LFC into a site about the owner, Duncan Oldham, his unsual sexual interests and and his various money making schemes, most of which had nothing to do with LFC. One of those schemes was a pyramid sales scheme in which he offered readers the opportunity of making quick money with very little effort by setting up sites like his own or by selling the scheme to others who would sell it to others and so on. Another was his attempt to circumvent securities law by selling shares in Koptalk to members. He was obliged to pay back the money. Oldham's response to this exodus of members was to buy up the domain names similar to thsoe of his rivals, and similar even to the LFC offical site, and redirect the traffic to his own site. His active editing of Wikipedia to support his false claim to be the No 1 site and to elminate references to other LFC fan sites is in this tradtion - including his attempt to crush the latest site set up by genuine fans who are upset by what they consider to be his exploitation of LFC and LFC supporters. http://www.koptalk-insider.com Actually he just bought that domain two days ago to redirect its traffic to his site.

His claim that various LFC footballers write for his site is false. In those early days - 5-7 years ago - he did contract to buy the rights to reproduce some syndicated articles by Tommy Smith and Ian St. John and the Liverpool writer Paul Tomkins - but he never paid them and they forbade him using their name.

Duncan Oldham claimed last week that he has taken 5 pounds advance payments from LFC supporters for 20,000 copíes of his proposed book "Anfield Exposed". The book is now in its third year of missed launches and he announced last week that it is now postponed until May of 2007. There is no such book. However the rpospeod title is typical of his exploitative attitude to the club he purports to support.

Oldham uses his site to collect for various causes and charities. The beneficiares of some of these charities are members of his family. Whatever the charity or cause he insists that donations are made out to him personally or his mother. He does not register any of them. He never produces accounts.

Koptalk claims to have connection to the players, directors and management of LFC. All these claims are false. Many of his "informers" are in fact aliases of Duncan Oldham He uses these "stories" to drum up paid membership in his Insider and Gold Club. Many of his members are people from Asia, Australia and the Americas who are not in a position to understand how his claims lack feasibility. They believe Koptalk is a Liverpool based site run by LFC fans. In fact it is run from Newcastle by Oldham alone with some help from his mother and a 17 yr old step brother. Oldham has a season ticket for Newcastle United, rarely if ever attends LFC games, and is in the process of starting similar sites for Newcasle, Spurs and Forest supporters.

He repeatedly claims he does not pay his two relatives who work for him. There are many obvious inconsistencies between his claims to make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, to buy 40,000 sterling mercedes and other vehicle, expensive video equipment and various properties (his latest target being a 300,000 property near the LFC training ground) and his claims to be poor, doing it as a hobby and unable to pay his relatives.

Many observors believe these inconsistences suggest his attempt to duck and weave to avoid investigation of various frauds including fraud of the public exchequer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.76.91 (talk • contribs) I cannot put in the symbols you ask for - my user name is rupert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.76.91 (talk • contribs)

In the article you say that Koptalk was founded by Duncan Oldham. In fact it was founded by Colin Seaman. He gave a share of it to Duncan Oldham. Apparently the Oldham takeover became complete. However, Colin Seaman's claim to co-ownership can be found on his own site at: http://www.dbcreate.com/dbcreate/content/team.htm

The following is a partial list of the sites squatted on by Duncan Oldham. This is not a contentious list he admits to it on his site. He admits that he has sat on these sites and pointed some of them to his own site to punish rival sites. Most of these sites have names similar to the names of rival sites. This list is taken from Koptalk-Insider which monitors his activities. The poster is "whois look up" _________________ Here are eight current squats - all three fanzines and 5 other main LFC sites. There’s probably more. Notice the dates and you’ll see all have been renewed at least once and he’s had some since 2001. A couple were pointed to his site until this information appeared on June 15th in another thread on this blog:

http://www.raotl.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: RAOTL.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN enquiries@koptalk.co.uk PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536 Record last updated on 12-Oct-2005. Record expires on 10-Oct-2006. Record created on 10-Oct-2001.

——–

http://www.liverpoolway.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: LIVERPOOLWAY.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN enquiries@koptalk.co.uk PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536

Record last updated on 12-Oct-2005. Record expires on 10-Oct-2006. Record created on 10-Oct-2001.

——–

http://www.shanklygates.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: SHANKLYGATES.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN 123reg@koptalk.tv PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.7980.014536 Record last updated on 20-Feb-2006. Record expires on 18-Feb-2007. Record created on 18-Feb-2003.

——–

http://www.lfconline.net/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: LFCONLINE.NET

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN enquiries@koptalk.co.uk PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536 Record last updated on 25-Sep-2004. Record expires on 10-Oct-2006. Record created on 10-Oct-2001

——–

http://www.themissionstatement.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: THEMISSIONSTATEMENT.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN support@koptalkforums.com PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.202.909822 Record last updated on 30-Nov-2005. Record expires on 01-Dec-2006. Record created on 01-Dec-2003.

——–

http://www.talklfc.co.uk/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM

Registrant type: UK Individual

Registrant’s address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Domain name: TALKLFC.CO.UK

Registrant’s agent: PIPEX Communications Hosting Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG] URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk

Relevant dates: Registered on: 27-May-2004 Renewal date: 27-May-2008 Last updated: 27-May-2006

——–

http://www.ynwa.net/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: YNWA.NET

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN 123reg@koptalk.tv PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.7980.014536 Record last updated on 20-Feb-2006. Record expires on 18-Feb-2007. Record created on 18-Feb-2003

——–

http://www.ttwar.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: TTWAR.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536 Record created on 10-Oct-2001 Record expires on 10-Oct-2006

he’s got others such as:

http://www.liverpoolfootballclub.org.uk/ http://www.liverpool-fc.net/ http://www.liverpool-fc.tv/ http://www.transferwhispers.com/ http://www.tribalfootball.co.uk/ http://www.caboodlenetwork.com/ http://www.chavgames.com http://www.footy4free.com http://www.freesky4pc.com http://www.upthetoon.com http://www.spursarmy.com http://www.michaelbarrmore.tv

  1. Will Robbo Says:
  1. Whois Lookup Says:

July 9th, 2006 at 2:14 am

And another registered on Friday is the name of the site which monitors his activities:

http://www.koptalk-insider.net/ Registrant: CABOODLE NETWORK PO Box 556 WALLSEND, TYNE-AND-WEAR NE28 7WZ UK

Domain name: KOPTALK-INSIDER.NET

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN PO Box 556 WALLSEND, TYNE-AND-WEAR NE28 7WZ UK +44.202.909822

Record last updated on 07-Jul-2006. Record expires on 07-Jul-2008. Record created on 07-Jul-2006.

_________________________

signed : rupert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.76.91 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - this is a discussion on possible deletion for this article - we're trying to establish whether the Koptalk article meets the criteria required to warrant an article. Most of the above is very interesting but doesn't directly relate to whether this article has met the requirements to prevent its deletion. It has already been generally agreed that this is a not-notable website that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Can we concentrate on determining whether the article has some justification to exist within the Wikipedia? Budgiekiller 21:16, 9 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.