Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uselessjunk

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uselessjunk

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable website Fireplace 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination Garrepi 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd desperately love to see this article deleted, as history clearly shows the article is just a playground for the forum members from this site. I'll predict that before this AFD is over, this discussion will at minimum need to be SProtected. Fan-1967 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:WEB and the fact that the article seems to be nothing but a dumping ground for vandalism. I count at least 15 reversions in the first 50 edits alone. Also fails WP:WEB by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/perhaps a weak keep Googling "UselessJunk" gets about half a million hits (although only 188 are unique), and its Alexa rank is very high. Perhaps this site has enough notability to warrant a WP article, but the article itself should be semi-protected for a little while until a true article can be written and the vandalism dies down? -- Kicking222 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Hooveruj who claims to be the site owner has been indefinately blocked for vandalism along with a sock User:H00ver. Fireplace 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • QuestionDid the sock user H00ver have the same IP address as Hooveruj? There is a possibility of an imposter. Live Dog 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I noticed the alexa rating too! It is very high. However, google has indexed only 73 unique sites that link to uselessjunk.com. That is very low. If you ignore both of these facts and look at the site and how it pertains to WP:WEB, it fails. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I began the article as a serious venture. My mistake was making it immediately known to other users who may not have taken it as seriously. I apologize for stepping on any toes, but Uselessjunk.com receieves 750,000 page loads per day. Uselessjunk.net (the forums) have well over 30,000 members. Perhaps this will go into your consideration. Live Dog 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question I'm not disagreeing with your assesment, I'm just asking for your opinion. Why are there so many active members, but so few people link to uselessjunk? If there were 30,000 members, wouldn't some of those members link to uselessjunk from their webpage/blog/sites? I mean, google only found 73 (now 74) unique pages. Wouldn't some people be publishing reports and articles about the site? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment:The "unique hits" in google are only filtered from the first 1000, so they're not accurate when the total is way over that. Fan-1967 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: The members usually rarely link to their own websites for two reasons: to maintain some level of internet anonymity and because external links to personal websites are generally considered spam by the UJ community. I'm not sure about all the online rankings, Hoover would be a better person to ask about that. Alexa lists 508 sites that link Uselessjunk.com. As far as the unique hit calculations, I'm not sure of that either. But I said 600k-700k in "page loads". Not neccessarily unique users, but hoover could clarify that better.Live Dog 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • QuestionHow does uselessjunk.com compare with phun.org, a similiar site in content, purpose and membership? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phun Live Dog 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — perhaps that page should be deleted too, but for now, this page fails WP:WEB and thats a fact American Patriot 1776 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable website and vandal magnet. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reason above.--KojiDude 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:The nature of this site may make it a target for vandals, but that doesn't warrant the article not being incuded. George Bush's wiki article is vandalized fairly often, does that make him not noteworthy? -mafew

  • Comment - The George Bush wiki article is vandalized fairly often. However, George Bush is notable. Uselessjunk is not. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By who's accessment? Yours? 3/4 of a million page loads a day makes me think it is notable. -mafew45
    • Comment - No. By WP:WEB. Nobody has even tried to provide proof that Uselessjunk meets criteria #1, #2, or #3. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By WP:WEB #1, Fake-a-wish.com, which is a prank site on the uselessjunk network has received national media attention several times. http://www.southernvoice.com/2004/5-7/news/localnews/falcons.cfm http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=558 http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=556 http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_925010.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2004173431,00.html
    • Livedog, You should add those directly to the article. First read Wikipedia:Citing sources to see what, when, and where to cite and Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to cite. When you're done, come back here to state that you've asserted notability so we can all judge the new citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI am sure hoover could provide more links and documentation, but it seems he has been erroneously blocked for sockpuppetry. He is user:hooveruj. The user h00ver was some anonymous imposter. hooveruj edited the entry to improve the entry as he said in the edit "(site owner cleaning up inaccurate information published)". If anyone would like verification that hooveruj is the actual site owner, please feel free to contact him at his whois info with Netsol: sales@swelldeal.com. Please unblock this erroneously blocked user.- Livedog
  • CommentAnother similiar content site, ebaumsworld, had similiar vandalism problems when a wikipedia entry was first created. The article was up for deletion similiar to this case. The resolution wikipedia gave ebaums was to restrict access to the entry to prevent vandals. Hoover would like to request similiar treatment to get the history and facts of the article correct without vandal participation.- Livedog
  • Delete: per above. The independant sources--well, one source, The Sun just says "a website"--refer to fake-a-wish.com not uselessjunk.com. On top of that, the articles are more about the rumors fake-a-wish.com has spread rather than the website itself. Mitaphane talk 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree with you on some stuff. The sun article doesn't even say what website posted the news and probably shouldn't belong on the article (right?). About the southernvoice article it does make mention to the fakeawish.com site and it seems to be semi-non-trivial coverage. However, this AFD is about uselessjunk not fakeawish. Even if this article was about fakeawish, though, one article isn't enough (multiple non-trivial published works). I disagree on one point. I think the southernvoice article was about fakeawish.com, not just the rumors that fakeawish spread. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: When I say an article is "about" a topic, I mean its the main topic being discussed. Given the headline, "Atlanta Falcons quarterback dispels gay rumors", I would say thats the case. If "about" means directly pertinent then I would say the article is about fakeawish,the rumor, and the Falcons. Regardless of our semantic differences, you are right; we need multiple non-trivial sources to gauge notability for this site. As the article stands, it does not have that. --Mitaphane talk 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article's directly qoute Hoover, the admin of this site-network, and whom you've banned (ironically). This network of sites is important enough to have caused A star QB in the NFL to dispell rumors about his sexuality. How is that only trivial coverage? I'm sure if you ask Mr. Vick, he thinks it's important ~ mafew45
  • Just curious: do you feel being cited as the source of malicious rumors is something to be proud of? Fan-1967 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just like to point out that the way many users found uselessjunk was after it was cited as being a reference of celebrity news by radio personalities such as Howard Stern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_stern (I believe it was mentioned multiple times by the character "Stuttering John") and/or Mancow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancow's_Morning_Madhouse The forum also frequently posts news articles for discussion, covering items such as foreign relations to marijuana law to gas prices to current celebrity news. Frequently I have found that the information on Uselessjunk is more current than that of local news stations. It seems that given the fact that it is used as a source of current information by radio personalities and individuals around the world (the forum browsers/users), it hardly would seem to be non-notable. I would urge you to allow the user Hooveruj (since he is the site owner/administrator) to address your concerns about Uselessjunk's "notability" H00ver 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - H00ver, you need to find reliable sources that back up your claims. Once you find the reliable sources, then read Wikipedia:Citing sources to see what, when, and where to cite and Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to cite. When you're done, come back here to state that you've found references of notability so we can all judge the new citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hooveruj has been unblocked for several days now and is welcome to contribute. Fireplace 19:18, 14 August 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.