Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. The views expressed are about evenly split. Policy arguments and considerations have been carefully considered but, in this instance, do not appear to mandate a particular result. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz

  • Delete:While certainly notable within the Wikipedia community, MyWikiBiz has shut down, and moved on to Centaire.com. It only had one employee, and I only briefly looked for more news coverage, but I doubt there is that much more then what is already present. As a side note, we don't need the blog article or the foreign language articles, and the Internals Links should be listed as External Links (per WP:SELF)). Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy should be reformatted as an external link ([1]]). Danski14 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
the business having shut down is a criterion for excluding it? Aaronbrick 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, my point was it counts against it when it comes to meeting WP:CORP. If if was still around I might reconsider as then it might be growing and expanding.. and we might want to keep the article as there might be more active media coverage, etc. Danski14 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is a business being defunct grounds for removal? It just means it'll always be a smaller article. - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? If Jimbo doesn't like something, we shouldn't have an article about it? That's silly. That said, I think the notability is borderline at best. FiggyBee 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable business. Thankfully, this is one of those "odd moments in Wikipedia history" which doesn't seem to have been picked up by the media. If there's more coverage than I've found, the article will need to be rewritten to avoid being quite as self-referential as it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There are 10+ sources. Whats not notable? - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. PCock 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What doesn't meet WP:CORP, please qualify that statement? There are 10+ sources on casual inspection, easily exceeding CORP's requirements. - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "Well certainly N within the WP community" which now stands at several million people. Articles about N things that might possibly show us in a negative light should be scrupulously kept. Further, the discussion regarding paid articles is likely to be for for quite a while. This is just the first of the group. The sources are sufficient--AP and major French & german sources. DGG 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Just so unnotable. Just like Willy on Wheels, Lightbringer, Mr. Pelican Shit, etc. we don't have articles on them. SakotGrimshine 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Oh and another reason is WP:DENY. SakotGrimshine 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What is not notable--please qualify that statement? There are 10+ sources on casual inspection, easily exceeding CORP's requirements. - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced that WP:DENY applies, since this particular character wasn't exactly vandalising the ol' 'pedia. He wasn't using it in the way we intend it to be used, definitely, but I wouldn't call what he was doing vandalism - which is, AFAIK, why the manner in which the account was blocked was more than a simple response to persistent vandalism. That said, I wasn't involved in the process at all, so I may be entirely mistaken. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There's publicgirluk who they also decided wasn't notable. But I think mighta had a bit of press. I doubt MyWikiBiz had any. You know there was some other person who did the same thing--I forget her username now, but they tried the same thing, even advertising and was told no. They were banned as a troll because nobody believe someone paid them $300 to write a Wikipedia article about their company. SakotGrimshine 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • All fair enough, but WP:DENY strikes me as having special reference to vandalism, rather than trolling or being commercial. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP, and otherwise self-referential. Drive a stake into this thing. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What doesn't meet WP:CORP, please qualify that statement? There are 10+ sources on casual inspection, easily exceeding CORP's requirements. - Denny 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep appears to have a little notability--Sefringle 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was mentioned on many news sites (including CNN, if I believe correctly) as a demonstration of the importance of Wikipedia in popular culture and as a discussion of ethics. Therefore its importance goes well beyond wikipedia insiders. --FateClub 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I also confess that I perceive some value in transparency and disclosure that could increase the importance of self-documentation like this, but I do not know of any such policy statement. And I should say while commenting that I see no problem with WP:CORP or WP:DENY. Aaronbrick 04:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with all the sources listed here I find it notable enough. bbx 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject meets and far exceeds the standards of WP:CORP, the only relevant application of WP:DENY I can think of is removing any such comments from this discussion as personal attacks. RFerreira 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RFerreira, et al. --Myles Long 18:35, 25 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.