Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEARsports.com
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. -Doc ask? 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NEARsports.com
NN, Vanity. Advertisement. Article appears to have been created by the founder of the company. -- Ichabod 12:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- NEARtobeingdeletedarticle.com... Alexa rank is 2,397,799. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it looks like a blatant advertisement... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert, and entire history is by User:Dgrim85, who is clearly the wembaster, David Grim, so vanity. ConDemTalk 13:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If you have an entry on Wikipedia for ANY other company on the planet, then you have to allow this one to stay.
What is the difference between these and the entry for this company?? --Dgrim85 14:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find anything wrong with this article. 15:40, 30 April 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.19.28.218 (talk • contribs)
- Since you asked, ESPN has an Alexa rank of 23, Yahoo has an Alexa rank of... 1. The Alexa rank of NEARsports is 2.4 million, meaning Yahoo is approximately 2.4 million times more popular than NEARsports. That makes it a little silly to compare the two directly. Since I answered your question, perhaps you could answer a question of mine: I'd like to know where in Wikipedia policy it says that "If you have an entry on Wikipedia for ANY other company on the planet, then you have to allow this one to stay." That's a new one to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have read the policy as well. I can find no regulations or guidelines that this entry violates. All of the information provided on the entry are provable facts. You can't have something deleted just because you don't like it. --Dgrim85 15:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Since you asked, ESPN has an Alexa rank of 23, Yahoo has an Alexa rank of... 1. The Alexa rank of NEARsports is 2.4 million, meaning Yahoo is approximately 2.4 million times more popular than NEARsports. That makes it a little silly to compare the two directly. Since I answered your question, perhaps you could answer a question of mine: I'd like to know where in Wikipedia policy it says that "If you have an entry on Wikipedia for ANY other company on the planet, then you have to allow this one to stay." That's a new one to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Alexa rank for the NEARsports Forums is 8524. --Dgrim85 16:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that's the Alexa rank for Forumforfree.com, which hosts your forums, but unless NEARsports is the only forum they host, that's not relevant to this particular article. --Metropolitan90 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP without prejudice if the company later becomes notable. If this is a really important web site, then an independent source will come along later and write an article about it. --Metropolitan90 16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- In the state of Arkansas, our company is quite "notable". It more than meets criteria #1 in the "Criteria for companies and corporations". You guys are making my case for me!--Dgrim85 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails on WP:VAIN, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. No notability established for website, company or webmaster. Fan1967 17:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The notabilitiy is established right in the entry and can be proven from many different sources. Meets ALL THREE criteria of WP:WEB. You folks really are reaching!--Dgrim85 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing in the article appears to document any of the three. Can you be more specific about how you believe you meet these criteria? Where are the multiple non-trivial published works from an independent source? Where is the well known and independent award? Where is the content distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators?? Fan1967 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The awards are prominently displayed on the website. Criteria's #1 & #3 are met by the fact that our articles have been purchased by and published in all of the newspapers and websites listed on the entry.--Dgrim85 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You and I must have different definitions of "prominently". What I see on your site is a sea of ads. Where are these awards? When you say "our articles" do you mean articles that you wrote, or content from the website? Can you document specific examples? Simply saying your content has been picked up is not sufficient. It must be verifiable. Fan1967 18:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The awards are located on the main page of the site, directly below the link to the football photos. 95% of ALL stories published on NEARsports.com have been picked up by every newspaper and website on that list in the entry. It can be verified if you search the archives of their websites, or go to a library in their repective towns and look them up on microfilm.--Dgrim85 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression that it is the responsibility of others to verify your claims. You are mistaken. As for the "Golden Web Awards" those are given out by the thousands. Fan1967 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps they are, but the American Association of Webmasters Award is not. Why have "guidelines" if you aren't going to adhere to them?? The bottom line is, the entry we submitted qualifies to be on Wikipedia according to its own guidelines. I can't be blamed if that fact hurts the feelings of some of the people here. I would now greatly appreciate it if someone from Wikipedia would remove this deletion box from our entry.--Dgrim85 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The deletion review process runs about a week. Fan1967 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps they are, but the American Association of Webmasters Award is not. Why have "guidelines" if you aren't going to adhere to them?? The bottom line is, the entry we submitted qualifies to be on Wikipedia according to its own guidelines. I can't be blamed if that fact hurts the feelings of some of the people here. I would now greatly appreciate it if someone from Wikipedia would remove this deletion box from our entry.--Dgrim85 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression that it is the responsibility of others to verify your claims. You are mistaken. As for the "Golden Web Awards" those are given out by the thousands. Fan1967 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The awards are located on the main page of the site, directly below the link to the football photos. 95% of ALL stories published on NEARsports.com have been picked up by every newspaper and website on that list in the entry. It can be verified if you search the archives of their websites, or go to a library in their repective towns and look them up on microfilm.--Dgrim85 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You and I must have different definitions of "prominently". What I see on your site is a sea of ads. Where are these awards? When you say "our articles" do you mean articles that you wrote, or content from the website? Can you document specific examples? Simply saying your content has been picked up is not sufficient. It must be verifiable. Fan1967 18:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The awards are prominently displayed on the website. Criteria's #1 & #3 are met by the fact that our articles have been purchased by and published in all of the newspapers and websites listed on the entry.--Dgrim85 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing in the article appears to document any of the three. Can you be more specific about how you believe you meet these criteria? Where are the multiple non-trivial published works from an independent source? Where is the well known and independent award? Where is the content distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators?? Fan1967 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The notabilitiy is established right in the entry and can be proven from many different sources. Meets ALL THREE criteria of WP:WEB. You folks really are reaching!--Dgrim85 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website per nom, WP:SPAM. It's not "your" entry, Dgrim85, it's Wikipedia's. You seem to think you have some guaranteed right to an article here. If kept, needs some improvement. I would take out the vanity "About the Webmaster" section, which is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on the site, and then what's left? Not much. · rodii · 21:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fixed your "About the webmaster" gripe. No more excuses.--Dgrim85 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is no longer a question of "if" it is kept. I have proven that it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. It must be kept. If it is deleted, that would be, by definition, a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, committed by Wikipedia itself. I will then resubmit the article.--Dgrim85 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete Results of High school sporting events in general are not sufficiently notable enough for inclusion of wikipedia let alone an article about a company that publishes them. BigE1977 21:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then why are there any radio stations or newpapers with articles on this site at all? You guys are just digging a hole. Keep it up!--Dgrim85 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- This article was copied over toNEARsports, with Nearsports and Nearsports.com as redirects to that page.-Whomp 22:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete And while we're at it, let's kill the redirects too. Darquis 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. OK, let's take the WP:WEB criteria one by one
-
- "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
- This refers to multiple non-trivial publications about the content. That is, articles about NEARsports, not articles that NEARsports has contributed to publications.
- "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
- Your strongest argument seems to be he AWWM award, so... from the AAWM site: "The website submitted to us must have a nice clean design and at least 10 pages of quality information (excluding award pages, contact pages, feedback forms and guestbook's). The site must not have any visible error messages. Approximately 40 to 50 percent of applicants win an award from our program." Not exactly a competitve award. 10 pages of quality info and no visible error messages is a pretty low bar, one that most weblogs in the world could meet, and, without meaning to be insulting, if your site is an example of their idea of good clean design, it doesn't inspire confidence in the award.
- "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."
- Hmm. Well-known is hard to judge definitively, of course, but the Alexa argument is very much not in your favor; as for "independent of the creators," however, there is a claim (not documented) that the content is distributed by a few newspapers. I'm not sure how to interpret this bit, to be honest.
- "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section."
- I just don't see such proof in the article. Conclusion: your argument that you have "proven" anything is weak, and your hectoring tone is unlikely to win you any friends here. What you seem not to understand is that no one here is "against" you or your site, and no one wishes you or it ill; it's just that your site is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia. · rodii · 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
- Delete per excellent arguments of · rodii · -- Hirudo 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, NN, spam --Deville (Talk) 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn and ads. *drew 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rodii. -- ReyBrujo 16:11, 1 May 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.
