Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacHeist

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. Conscious 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacHeist

MacHeist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominated for deletion by 72.240.153.72. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note I have nominated for afd, a related article My Dream App. Bwithh 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Many people seem to not know what it is, and an article like this explaining it is essential. --Biiaru 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, assuming nobody finds reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I refer you the extensive news coverage including:

• the homepage of Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/software/0,72333-0.html?tw=wn_index_1
• Slashdot: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/17/2022219
• theappleblog: http://theappleblog.com/2006/12/14/macheist-hits-50k-mark/
• macslash: http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/154251
• macrumors: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/20061215115832.shtml
• oreillynet: http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/oh_what_a_world.html
• lifehacker: http://www.lifehacker.com/software/downloads/download-of-the-day-macheist-bundle-mac-221833.php

Was top of the "most popular" lists on del.icio.us and digg, returns 1,140,000 google articals, and not only that it was included in the weekly News Summaries for sendittopress.com: http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2006-12-1216-001.shtml

All in all this site in such a short period of time became on of the most significant events in the Apple Mac indie software movement. --86.15.162.159 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Um... what? Wired, maybe. But you included Slashdot as "news coverage"? Under what definition is mention on Slashdot "news coverage"? The others are no better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim to encyclopedic notability. A contest like this needs publicity otherwise it can't operate. So it gets computer press coverage. But wikipedia is not a magazine/news archive Bwithh 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I disagree, I have removed the "mac-fanboy" section that was un-encyclopedic, and have spoken to the guy who wrote it. However, it did raise some interesting points, the major being that as a new style of marketing an otherwise niche software market it succeeded. Moreover, this was an unprecedented event within the macintosh community which has, (by initial estimates), boosted the mac shareware economy considerably and is already considered a landmark event in the history of the macintosh community's close relationship between software makers and users. Personally I question the necessity to have articles on Wikipedia about individual episodes of south park, and yet they remain unchallenged. This event actually meant something to the mac community, and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipeida. 86.15.162.159 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's nice that it meant something to the Mac community. Meaning something does not override WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a participant in this site, as well as being an admin at Wikipedia, I don't like the position I'm in. However, since this was a big event for the Apple rumors community I would say that this would be a keep because of the scale of the event. (However, I would not say the same for My Dream App). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This event has turned out to be important to the Mac community. And I don't know if this counts as a reliable resource, but here's one more article:

• Macworld: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/20/macheist/index.php

Sorry if I did this wrong, first time using Wikipedia as a voice instead of a viewer. --adamdash

• Weak Delete. I'm not sure about WP:V (although if it passes, it is by a very, very thing margin), but considering the debate that the event caused, I think the article also needs to be considered with WP:NPOV in mind. --67.37.110.70 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely doesn't have WP:V. --69.23.80.84 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This was a fairly well-known project, has some reasonably big names, and was quite conterversial to some people. —JeremyBanks Talk 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Of course this is going to be in all the computer media, that's natural. Still not worthy for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. — Wackymacs 13:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Shouldn;t be in an encyclopedia
• Keep. People around the net have been hearing about this and don't know what Macheist is about, this page clearly explains its content, purpose and mechanics. --R031E5 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tens of thousands of members, hundreds of thousands of dollars raised in charity, and contributions from many major developers should definitely signify some notability. --YesIAmAnIdiot 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I visited this page for the very reason of finding out more about Macheist!
  • The MacHesit website and official wiki take care of that for people. --69.23.80.84 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a rather prominent event in the Mac community. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's great, but as discussed above, this does make it WP:V --69.23.80.84 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Does someone have a reference which is not wired.com or slashdot? -Amarkov

^blah_edits 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This has been one of the most important (IMO) sites in the Mac community this year. It has helped unknown developers become famous, and should be here so people of future generations can look back on it. Maxinater 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well I have found two references in the computer magazine macworld: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/20/macheist/index.php http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/mwpodcast/2006/11/mwpodcast58/index.php plus it can be found http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36418 and on the O'Reilly Media website, http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/taking_the_heist.html I have to say this event is worth of being here, for the sheer scale of interest it caused both inside and outside of the mac community. --Adamwilcox 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No print references? — Wackymacs 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I believe macworld are including it in their next issue, but you know the delay between online and print. always amazes me how tech magazines stay in print, they can never compete with the online counterparts.

Macworld don't always put everything in their magazine (since there are too many news stories), so we can't count on that happening. I haven't seen much mention of MacHeist outside of Mac/Tech sites. I still don't think this even meets the Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria (since there hasn't been mention in any print publications, it hasn't won any awards, etc). The web notability criteria does not allow Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. - so Slashdot, Macworld, Wired don't exactly count. — Wackymacs 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete self promoting garbage
• Keep This artlice accuratley describes a website for a business organization, if you will, that offers games to its consumers, no different than say Yahoo or Google —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.24.116 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• Except that Google and Yahoo are global brands and multi-billion dollar businesses, both listed on the stock exchange? — Wackymacs 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's a reason we got rid of Phill's page, and there's a reason we should get rid of this one. MacHeist is way overblown, handled on controversial terms by a boy known for his underhanded ways. He doesn't deserve a fraction of the attention he's getting, and there's no reason he should be on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.140.223.210 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 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.