Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz.com

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. Petros471 13:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz.com

Converting prod to AfD; This article was originaly Prod'D for not meeting WP:CORP notaility. Taking it to AfD to get a community consensus. I am abstaining from casting an opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. --MacRusgail 15:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Involvement with Wikipedia does not merit applying standards other than those applied to other companies. JPD (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails to meet WP:CORP. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. Just want to point out that WP:CORP says: A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. The firm MyWikiBiz.com has been written about here in the French version of Ziff Davis Media and here in the German newspaper Die Welt, with daily circulation of over 200,000. That's multiple. And that's non-trivial. Please be certain you know what you're talking about if you state that the company "fails to meet" WP:CORP. Of course, I'm not saying there aren't other reasons to delete this article at this time, such as failing WP:NPOV, since I think some of the subsequent edits were carried out with personal bias. You may disagree. Other than that, have fun, everyone! --MyWikiBiz 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ...Eight days now since nomination. ZZZzzz... --MyWikiBiz 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) -~-~-~-~Wow, nine (9) days now, since nomination. What's the record duration for an AFD not to be decided on by an admin? I thought the guidelines say "at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it will always be closed within a few more days at most. Asking for someone to close the discussion is not necessary." This AFD must be radioactive or something. --MyWikiBiz 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a note that WP:CORP isnt my reason, i was just turning it from a prod to an AfD for consensus. I will not be expressing my opinions on this matter hence why i abstain. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As Fan-1967 says below, I asumed WP:CORP meant more than two (multiple rather than couple). However, I guess that's personal choice. Seeing as I can read neither french nor german, I can not comment wheather the newpaper articles are about wikipedia, or about MyWikiBiz (although it certainly was mentioned quite a few times in those articles, esp the german one). In my book though, this one is still non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Go up to a mother who just gave birth to twins ("only" two babies), and ask, "Hi, did you just have multiple births?" I think you know what she'll answer. Might even curse at you! Anyway, just wanted to add that bit of levity and perspective on a word. "Multiple", according to most dictionaries, means "more than one". I really don't mind if this article gets deleted at this time. The business really isn't notable. Yet. --MyWikiBiz 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I guess my interpretation of "multiple" doesn't mean "two". What I mainly find in searching ([1]) is press releases. blogs and forums. Fan-1967 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete following google search as per fan-1967 and therefore non-notable --Charlesknight 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having taken part in the heated debate over an article created by MyWikiBiz, I'm abstaining. But it seems that by creating a high profile controversy on Wikipedia, MyWikiBiz may now be notable, for better or worse. "Die Welt" is a major German publication. That said, next week they may be forgotten. -- Slowmover 18:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Peta 01:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep please the business is uniquely notable and has had multiple nontrivial coverages Yuckfoo 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't assert notability. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a link to the french article translated into english, and Here is a link to the german article translated into english, both by google's translation service. They're somewhat mangled english, but they are comprehensible with a bit of effort. --Xyzzyplugh 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 2nd Comment With the two sources listed here, the article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. So, if the article were to be deleted, it would need to be either because it violates WP:NOT, or possibly because it violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. That is, the press only reported on this because it had to do with wikipedia, so perhaps in having an article on mywikibiz we're just having another article about ourselves. --Xyzzyplugh 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:CORP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JPD. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep MyWikiBiz.com has barely met WP:CORP; and I talked myself out of a "Neutral" rating while writing my explanation, since I was doing what I oppose - changing how I evaluated the company against the standard because of their interactions on wikipedia. While I do not feel comfortable taking a postiion because it seems that anything having to do with MyWikiBiz is unnecessarily polemic, the openly hostile approach of some to a company that has openly stated their intentions, invited community review, made some bad jokes & mistakes, but overall acted responsibly is bad policy. One of the reasons I like wikipedia over all other internet areas is because there is generally mutual respect and concern even amongst those who take drastically different positions. MyWikiBiz deserves at least that much from us. The sources, while not in English, push me over to keep, as we should apply the standards equally. --Trödel 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This company meets the very letter of our WP:CORP guidelines and is uniquely notable as mentioned above. RFerreira 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I too like Trödel find myself disliking them without a fair evaluation based on their idiotic behavior.... but based on strictly the facts, they barely pass our guidelines and I guess that means they should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. While it is true that there are two non-trivial (foreign language) sources, MyWikiBiz hasn't really done all that much, and the coverage is more due to the concept than its activity. When you add that to the essentially emphemeral and transitory nature of online businesses/services, I don't think I can vote keep. --maru (talk) contribs 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only passes a very generous reading of WP:CORP. I agree w/maru. Eusebeus 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I don't feel those articles meet the requirement of non-trivial coverage: they're more about the phenonemon of paid Wiki articles than the company itself. Mark Grant 13:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak merge the non-company-specific stuff to paid wiki coverage. certainly a nascent phenomenon. ~ct.e 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Alkivar. bbx 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It seems to me that to include this would require the rules of WP:CORP to be stretched in the wrong direction. Since this content is about a user of wikipedia, I think it would be better to include it on his user page. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c)
• Delete, 2 mentions does not make it notable. Verifiable yes, but there are millions of non notable companies with 2 press mentions. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-16t05:44z

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.