Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinCustomize

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 keep. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WinCustomize

Written mostly by the board operator themselves (check the User page of User:GreenReaper), and has since denigrated into people arguing about how could the forum mods are. Doesn't seem noteworthy. -- Jbamb 13:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: ad w/o hint of notability, but on very grand scale. It feels as if they moved their website here :-) Pavel Vozenilek
• Keep - needs extensive cleanup but is a notable website. Alexa rank of 3,799. --Quarl 14:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite significantly — I don't like the article all that much, either, but just deleting it isn't likely to solve anything.

I have tried not to be biased in my edits, but I can accept that it would be better if others had a go at rewriting it. (I'm not an operator on there, BTW, just a journeyman - I write software and make the occasional skin, I don't patrol boards, else I'd never get anything done :-).

It is possible that the criticism section was written by a disgruntled forum user to make a point, which is unfortunate, but as I mentioned on the talk page, the forums are a very small part of the site itself. The main portion of the article should be about the skinning site, not the attached forums, as that is what is notable. There are plenty of forums around, but there is only one site that comes up first when you google for windows skin, and that is WinCustomize. GreenReaper 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Very notable site. I suggest a clean-up, to make it more neutral ComputerJoe 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup. -- JJay 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but let a neutral party do a total rewrite. Konfab user 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to Delete --Konfab user 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopaedic, not sufficiently notable.--Daveb 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see how this article could be considered not sufficiently notable since skinning or the use of skins is done by a minority of computer users. Would this mean all articles about skinning, skinning sites, or skinning programs should be deleted? Konfab user 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, notable website but article needs a NPOV rewrite. Cchan199206 06:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article with its rampant product linking is little more than a marketing blurb for Stardock - albeit with an unwanted negative spin with the addition of the 'Forum Criticisms' which has inspired the contestation over neutrality in the first place. If a 'clean-up' simply follows the focus of this argument and removes only the criticisms then the point is still being missed. As it stands not only does the article exemplify the commodification of information but, with its purported 'neutrality', it also seeks to represent its commercial imperative as natural and unbiased setting an unwelcome precedent in the process. Confuchsia 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you think it's not neutral, fix the neutrality. As you appear to be new to Wikipedia, I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for help in doing so. Note also that edits to the article are not forbidden during the AfD process, as you seem to believe. GreenReaper 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • but i have already addressed my concerns about the article's lack of neutrality Greenreaper. It is true i could edit the page however running through endless reversions seems to achieve very little. Discussion in order to reach a concensus would seem to be the way forward at this point. My edit comment does not deny the process of further editing. That assumption is entirely yours, but thank you for your advice. My reversion does help to contextualise this debate however, which not only includes the subjectivity of the forum criticisms but the excess of advertising as well. A third of the article page is taken up with product links. One can hardly complain about the subjective bias of the Forum Criticism when the page is so overtly an advertisement for Stardock products,no? Confuchsia 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• This article really needs to go because WinCustomize is only notable enough to have a paragraph in the Stardock article. --Konfab user 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On what grounds? Where are you drawing the line of non-notability, and why? It's possibly the biggest skinning site in the world, and certainly within the Alexa top 5000 - is that truly insufficient? GreenReaper 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but a major cleanup is needed -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 21:26, 29 December 2005 (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.