Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Localdataplace

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 Delete karmafist 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Localdataplace

Not an encyclopedia article, but appears to be a Freecycle-like project attempting to use wikipedia to create a homepage for themselves quercus robur 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it is just trying to advertise on wikipedia MAZO 15:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adware.--MONGO 15:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Its not even advertising as there's no external link- they are actually trying to create a homepage for this project within the wikipedia as far as I can see quercus robur 16:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete .. per nomination. —ERcheck @ 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It certainly isn't notable and it looks like they are trying to advertise for it as well. -- MicahMN | μ 17:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to Keep This Page

Addressing the comments above, one at a time:

  1. Per the wikipedia defintion, an encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. This page is an attempt to give people knowledge, including the existance of the site, how it fits in with Freecycle (during its conflicts), etc. In this case, it is the same as linking to other commercial sources that serve the local areas, such as the television stations, radio stations and newspapers; they have the same local purpose.
  2. "... a Freecycle-like project...". As we wrote, Freecycle is a collection of Yahoo Groups. We have many important differentiators, which are listed on our own site. We specifically didn't list them on the wiki page so that it wouldn't look like an ad.
  3. "use wikipedia to create a homepage". We already have a homepage. We're attempting to tell people about a resource that other people in their communities are using.
  4. "just trying to advertise". Look at the links on the page for Charlotte, North Carolina. I see links to companies, which certainly help to reinforce their brand. I see links to other community services, like churches, newspapers, television and radio stations. Please explain why it's ok for someone interested in Charlotte to know about only one of the town's newspapers, but not to know about another place where they can interact with other locals?
  5. "...there's no external link..." The introduction gives the URL, which has now been made into a link.
  6. "...certainly isn't notable..." To try and keep the page from looking like an advertisement, we didn't list all the things that make the site different from other sites; these are listed on our home page(s). The vanity page lists several reasons why this page could exist, including: 'An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.' Please explain how we can show the importance without coming across as an advertisement in your minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalDataPlace (talk • contribs)
      • I wouldn't have a problem with the page if it was converted into a proper, nuetral, reasonably written encyclopedic article on the subject, even just a stub. At the moment its not, and needs a total overhaul. If you require a wiki for discussion and development of your project these can be downloaded or obtained free of charge very easily nowadays, its just that wikipedia isn't the appropriate place quercus robur 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • LDP, T think Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is good reading for you. You wrote, "we didn't list all the things that make the site different from other sites;". Well, yes please, it is imperative you list them, citing reliable sources as you do. As you said, this is an encyclopedia: you will not see an article on my dog here without at least a verifiable word on its importance. -- Perfecto 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unencyclopedic tone. Contains self-references ("Note to Wikipedia editors"). (ESkog)(Talk) 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per ESkog. The meta-reference was the clincher for me -- Shinmawa 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa ranking just barely cracks the four million mark, very few Google hits, many of them apparently adverts anyway. This is vanispamcruftisement. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB guideline (Just zis Guy's research). An interesting project, but lacks the widespread notability at this time required for a Wikipedia page. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this ad, per Guy. rodii 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:VSCA applies nicely. I wish you well with your project, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertize. Also Wikipedia:Avoid self references. Stifle 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Adspam. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:42, 10 January 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.