Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to the internet. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.
You can help maintain this list by:
- adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
- removing closed AFDs.
- removing unrelated discussions.
If you wish, you may also:
- tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|the internet}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|the internet}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.
Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.
See also: computer-related deletions.
[edit] Internet
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] StereoKiller and StereoKiller.com
Reads like an advert. Seems like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. sharpdust 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't this posted here yesterday? Is there a policy on how often these things should be reposted here? Not sure...just seems like there should be. will381796 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- In the history log it only shows this AfD. There was an earlier version of this article with a different spelling (lower case k) that was speedy deleted in May, but that wouldn't prevent this one from being AfD. If an AfD decision is to delete and someone re-created the article then it can be speedy deleted as a repost {{db-repost}}Brian 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball
- Delete - Spam. Artw 06:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- this is not an advertisment. if purevolume, hxcmp3 and myspace can have pages here, why can't stereokiller. it's full of relevant information and is a highly popular website. do not delete it. if you delete this, then by all means you would be hypocrites to not delete the pages for purevolume and hxcmp3, it would only be fair. just because *you* haven't heard of the site doesn't mean a ton of other people haven't. Cbrickhouse 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (article creator)
- I live on this site, as well as MANY of THOUSAND other users... THIS SITE IS THE SHIT!!! This is not spam.. we are all sexy bitches and this is our main wave of communication for band shows, news, and the BEST site for love sex advice... This site has it all, mainly users are 15-35. VERY organized and easy to search for people around your area and many others. Profiles can have LOTS of pictures, and you can rate other users!!!! I WOULD DIE WITHOUT THIS SITE!!! THANK YOU CBRICKHOUSE!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE BEST!
<3 LynzieBeBe — Possible single purpose account: Lynziebebe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- OMG, glad I saw this here. This site is the so hot and I just searched for locals in my area and saw some people I havent seen in years! thanks Wikipedia!!!! — Possible single purpose account: SexyDcups (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- This site shouldn't even be called a site. It is a HUGE COMMUNITY of people. This site is full of TONS of information and it is definatly one of the hottest things on the interent. It is a very useful site for all areas of the country. To delete it would be suicide. -DPancoast; user since 2002. — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- I hardly think the description reads like an advertisement, and with the site holding 135,000 member profiles and counting, it seems to advertise itself just fine. Stereokiller is my personal resource for all things music, including news, band profiles and downloads. Not to mention a massive online community I can share my love of music with. The site features member profiles from all four corners of the world. It rules, that is all. - Adam. 204.101.241.2 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonnotable website (which is why it's different from, for example, MySpace); Alexa rating below 282,000. NawlinWiki 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- ALEXA IS TRASH. It is the worst way possible to rank websites. When I installed their crap toolbar ages ago, i watched my site go to the top 10,000 within days. Go by our statistics - 5,000,000 message board posts, 130,000 members, and 350,000 sessions a day. Perhaps you should take some time to do some research before you make an ass out of yourself again. ALSO - the site uses two domain names - so search for both on alexa and you will see that it's a completely different story. Search for pahardcore.com AND stereokiller.com and do some averaging. Cbrickhouse 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Failing to do so can result in being blocked from Wikipedia. Srose (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Edit-conflicted comment First of all, no personal attacks. NawlinWiki was stating a very rational viewpoint, which is quite different than "mak[ing] an ass out of [him]self". Second of all, pahardcore.com has an Alexa rank of 297,961; thus, on average, these two sites would have a ranking of around 290,000, and even if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000. That certainly helps to confirm a lack of importance. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement. Alexa rank of 282,210. A grand total of Seventy-one unique Google hits. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that you're basing your opinions on alexa's ranking system is completely retarded. Seriously. If everyone that used my message boards downloaded their toolbar, we would see both domains rise to the top 10,000, which is where it once was. And alexa doesn't even support Firefox... which about 20% of my users use. Cbrickhouse 13:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- For proof of what I speak of: view our rankings from two years ago. You will see we almost go into the top 5,000. This was because I had all my users download a personalised toolbar. A lot of the people stopped using the toolbar because they use BETTER toolbars, like googles. If google ranked websites I guarantee that we would have great rankings.
And as for our "unique google hits" - you're basing that on the domain name stereokiller.com, which has only been active for a few years. Search in google for pahardcore.com and you will have much different results.
Your math/reasoning skills are not very good. It would *not* be an actual average of the two divided by the total of both. It would be much lower if the site used one domain name. Probably around 100,000. Because it's tracking both as seperate websites, it lowers the rankings of both instead of as one site.
- First off, I mentioned above that if you combined the rankings, they still wouldn't be much higher; as I stated, "if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000." Second, and once again, please try to conform to WP:CIVIL. Finally, I actually got a laugh out of your claim that my math skills are subpar, seeing as I had perfect scores on the math SAT I and SAT IIc. But that's irrelevant; as someone mentions below, I'd be all for sprotecting this discussion, or simply speedying the article right now (as all 8 registered users who have made their opinions known have moved for deletion anyway, while only single purpose accounts have argued for keeping the article). -- Kicking222 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Before I go into my reasoning for deletion, let me say this: saying incivil and rude things ("your math/reasoning skills are not very good", "completely retarded", etc) will not help your case in the least and may in fact result in a block or ban. I believe this article should be deleted because it does not satisfy the guideline of WP:WEB and because it's apparently not very well known - I can find no news article or non-trivial publications on this website. Srose (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course I'm going to be un-civil - you people have not listened to a word I've said. Our google pagerank for pahardcore.com is 5/10 and stereokiller.com 4/10 - which is just as good as some other sites I've seen listed here. If you're going to ban me then just do it already. I've done nothing other than to try and get a simple page for my site here, not an advertisement, but because it is an important resource for music and IS widely used, despite what you have illogically deducted. But I ask that if you delete my then delete the like sites as well. Then at least you would have done something right today. Cbrickhouse 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT to see our reasoning for deleting your article. If other articles seem to fail to qualify for articles under the same criteria yours may be deleted for, please feel free to list them for deletion following the instructions on WP:AFD. Srose (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well based on your criteria then, it IS still notable. Our CD reviews are cited on many popular band's websites (some of these bands listed on wiki). I can compile a list if you like.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs) .
- Strong Delete and semi-protect this discussion please. This article fails WP:V, and in kind WP:OR. It reads like and Advert as well. It may be a WP:VANITY article as well as Cbrickhouse is seemingly claiming ownership of the site. I would remind Cbrickhouse that Blogs, Personal Websites and other trivial sources are not acceptable for citing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- whatever you say buddy. it's obvious i'm not going to ever win this argument. thanks for ignoring the facts, and when my site is up to a million members i guess you'll still be calling it "non-notable". thanks for nothing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs) .
- Comment Please sign your posts. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Cbrickhouse may wish to remember that Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site if you want to advertise for your site, there are plenty of people willing to sell you webspace. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- here is a listing of some of our citations.
- trustkill records
- avenged sevenfold avenged sevenfold
- regurgitate
- epitaph records
- ignite
- sing365
- yahoo music
- I could list more too. If you search for pahardcore.com on google you et this.
Results 1-10 of about 67,100 for "pahardcore.com". (0.18 seconds) Cbrickhouse 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment These still do not pass WP:V or WP:RS criteria. And comments made like this on that websites discussion boards asking users there to come here and make accounts to contest this, show that you are trying to disrupt this AfD. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see that Cbrickhouse is using his forum to incite his members to bombard wiki. He has posted a link leading directly to this AfD page. His aim may not be to disrupt, but he is obviously motivated by wanting to severely improve his G-rank. The result is that there could be hundreds of new accounts which will not be used hereafter, and in the meantime plenty if vicious jibes about censorship and fascism from people who don't understand and don't want to understand Wiki's fundamental precepts. Ohconfucius 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment These still do not pass WP:V or WP:RS criteria. And comments made like this on that websites discussion boards asking users there to come here and make accounts to contest this, show that you are trying to disrupt this AfD. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Non notable web site. Does not meet WP:WEB. Reads as advertizing. No assertion of notability within the article. No sources to support verification of notability. Brian 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball
- Delete - Spam + obnoxious puppetry + above comments.Wickethewok 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment reverted vandalism by User:141.158.213.161--Brian (How am I doing?) 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment reverted additional vandalism by User:141.158.213.161. (for the vandal, please note the history tab. We know who makes edits and what changes they make)--Brian (How am I doing?) 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- If there's a page for purevolume.com, there is no reason why there should not be one for stereokiller.com as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.235.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-17 15:40:08 (UTC)
- Delete Pure spam.--KojiDude 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- you guys really do have nothing better to do, do you? — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Comment - Wording like this by the article's author i wanted to get the site in there to improve our google ranking. however, thats not gonna happen now that i called em all faggots. on this form verify this is just spam, and a violation of Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site..and many other WP standards.--Brian (How am I doing?) 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Nothing you say after that is going to stop it from being deleted, nor is any vandalism you do going to go un-reverted, so you might as well give up.--KojiDude 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't say that however, if they can prove they have been covered by WP:RS and edit the article to show this (a few features in newspapers, magazines, tv shows or other published reputable sources would prove it is notable) then the article just needs a clean up, however in light of the statement above, the article was created in bad-faith so I would be neutral on keeping it even if they found sources. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- WikiPedia sounds like it may be owned by newscorp. Is that why you allow myspace on here and not another personal networking site? And as for the Alexa/google rating you guys have plenty of cliff claven like facts on here that are super low on the google scale.--Brokenskull 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)BrokenSkull
- Delete as spam. Prolog 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's my question. I read in your guidelines to the affect that someone other than the owner of the site has to post the content that he was going for here. So if someone else posted it and was able to bring out the sources, would there be a possibility of it being kept despite the fact that this whole charade went down today?{unsigned|204.8.203.16}}
- Delete. I like spam, but only in a sandwich. Soo 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Commentseems like a legitimate website. i don't see the problem with keeping it.70.91.21.146 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Rich
- Reply To Comment Please view the listed complaints against the article and then refute them with a reasoning beyond that it is a legitimate website. My snakes (venomous and non-venomous) and scorpians have a ligitimate website...that doesn't make them Wikipedia worthy beyond my userpage--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete dumbkidscruft. Danny Lilithborne 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where can I view these complaints?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) .
- I realize that this website has certain guidelines/ways to decide whether or not a website is allowed to be listed on Wikipedia and that Stereokiller doesn't currently meet the Alexa rating standard. I also realize that Brickhouse may have offended/upset more than a few people on here, making everyone even more biased against the site. However, that was merely because he doesn't understand why a website that has so many users and so many bands isn't eligible for this website. Have all of you checked the site out yourself? It isn't just a message board. There are thousands of CD reviews on there, mp3s, and listings for shows all around the country, as well as, over a million users. Maybe when it was started in 97, it was just a bunch of our friends messing around on a website, but it has grown and has become ridiculously widespread over the past 10 years. Brickhouse could no longer even keep the old name (PaHardcore), because it was more than obvious that it wasn't just us southeastern PA kids anymore. The users on Stereokiller are from all over the world. The website helps up and coming bands get wide exposure, much like MySpace does. I hope you can at least take that into consideration. Thanks. -Jessclancy 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jess.
- 'Jess, while I can respect that completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so you understand. The Alexia rating isn't really used as a guideline (and is often cited for it's inaccuracy. I personally believe it should be done away with), and the Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims. It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article falls into being an advertisment per a statement made by a forum member. It also fails to meet wikipedia's website policy. I hope this helps you to understand. Basicly this fails WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB and WP:RS --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as spam -- Whpq 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per spam. We don't need garbage like this on Wikipedia regardless of how "popular" this website is. :: Colin Keigher
21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete. If the service is as popular as it and it's supporters claim, then I will change my position only after the article contains citations to reliable sources that allow it satisfy the criteria put forth in Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of websites. The article must also not sound like an advertisement and must be neutral.-- danntm T C 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Obviously an advertisement for a non-notable website. Recommend semi-ptotection of AfD due to "troll attack". Tokakeke 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Brian and danntm. --Wafulz 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Commentthis site is NOT spam—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andwedanced (talk • contribs) .
Spain - CommentNo one is saying the SITE is spam. We are saying that article sounds like and advertisment. The term we use is 'spamvertisment' or 'spam' to refer to the article. Please see the above arguements --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, I would like to say that I understand and respect why you have these guidelines and this screening process. I neglected to mention that in my previous post. Although I just created my account today, I frequent this website quite often when researching my college term papers (and of course, I cite the information and give credit where it is due). Therefore, I completely understand that it is important to your credibility as a website and information provider to make sure that your hosted websites are legitimate. I also appreciate the time you took to be very specific when replying to my first post even though you already did it multiple times on this page and are probably tired of doing it. With that being said (I know, there is always a but), I think that with the variety of different services/information that different sites have to offer, maybe some of the guidelines should be different for certain types of websites. Stereokiller is much different than a site where, for example, someone has dedicated to American History. Obviously, if you are hosting that man's website, you must be sure that it is legit and the information is accurate, and that it is not just some wierdo posting from his basement who decides he wants to rewrite American History and see what internet sucker believes it. Stereokiller, on the other hand, really helps give new and up and coming bands exposure. The mp3s that are hosted are provided to the user for free, so Brickhouse is not doing this in order to have more people paying him for downloads of songs. Also, I understand why you are looking for notable sources/articles to verify that Stereokiller is a credible website for reasons that I mentioned earlier. However, I think that is a little less important than it is for the american history type website I described above, because the bands choose to host themselves. Brickhouse can't be falsely representing the bands, because they put the information about them up themselves. Also, I doubt there are many articles, if any at all, written about Stereokiller, not because it is a non-credible website, but because it represents the underground hardcore scene, which is much less popular than a website that is centered around huge pop-stars like Justin Timberlake or Kelly Clarkson. As far as not wanting to host a website with biased information, I understand that as well. The only information that I could see to be considered biased on the website would be the reviews, but that's to be expected, right? A review is simply one person giving their opinion about what they are reviewing. If they don't like the music, it gets a bad review, much like if Roger Ebert doesn't like a movie, it gets a bad review. That does not mean that Ebert is not a credible source for movie reviews, nor that the movie is techinically awful, it is just his opinion. As far as the article Brickhouse posted about it sounding like an advertisement, I read Pure Volume's post and found them to be quite similar. I realize that PureVolume probably meets the credible article requirement because it is a much bigger website, but it had to start somewhere, right? I realize this was quite a long-winded post, and I'm not sure if you are even going to bother reading it. I also realize that you probably could care less about bending the rules for me because, like I said before, I understand why you have the rules to begin with, and also because I'm sure you just think that I am some random girl on the internet defending her friend and his website. Haha, but I've never been one to not voice my opinion, so you got it whether you care to read it or not. Once again, thanks for taking the time to at least read my response, and also thank you for the countless amount of term papers this website has helped me with. -Jess. Jessclancy 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. You are on the way to understanding our purpose here. It isn't to write an article about every web site in existence. Projects such as Wikidweb have that goal. Our goal is to write an encyclopaedia, that readers can trust because they can independently verify everything in it should they choose to, that does not contain original research (i.e. completely idiosyncratic viewpoints or new ideas, syntheses, and analyses that haven't been through a process of publication, fact checking, and peer review outside of Wikipedia), and that espouses no point of view in any debates. Our inclusion criteria such as WP:WEB exist, in large part, so that Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia and doesn't turn into a World Wide Web directory. This is why arguments such as "Web site X has an article. We should, too!" will always fail. We also don't include and exclude subjects based upon their personal importance to individual Wikipedia editors. If we used subjective criteria like that, Wikipedia would be a complete mess. We don't include or exclude web sites from having articles based upon thier credibility (although we most definitely do exclude external links to web sites based upon their credibility, see Wikipedia:External links). We include or exclude web sites according to WP:WEB. The way to argue that a subject should have an encyclopaedia article is to cite sources showing that it has been the subject of serious, independent, fact-checked, and peer-reviewed discussion outside of Wikipedia.
Remember when writing your term papers that it is poor work to cite an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is merely a tool that condenses and summarizes the knowledge, and shows readers where the actual reading material is. If there is no actual reading material about a web site, then there shouldn't be an encyclopaedia article on it. Uncle G 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. You are on the way to understanding our purpose here. It isn't to write an article about every web site in existence. Projects such as Wikidweb have that goal. Our goal is to write an encyclopaedia, that readers can trust because they can independently verify everything in it should they choose to, that does not contain original research (i.e. completely idiosyncratic viewpoints or new ideas, syntheses, and analyses that haven't been through a process of publication, fact checking, and peer review outside of Wikipedia), and that espouses no point of view in any debates. Our inclusion criteria such as WP:WEB exist, in large part, so that Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia and doesn't turn into a World Wide Web directory. This is why arguments such as "Web site X has an article. We should, too!" will always fail. We also don't include and exclude subjects based upon their personal importance to individual Wikipedia editors. If we used subjective criteria like that, Wikipedia would be a complete mess. We don't include or exclude web sites from having articles based upon thier credibility (although we most definitely do exclude external links to web sites based upon their credibility, see Wikipedia:External links). We include or exclude web sites according to WP:WEB. The way to argue that a subject should have an encyclopaedia article is to cite sources showing that it has been the subject of serious, independent, fact-checked, and peer-reviewed discussion outside of Wikipedia.
- Youtube.com has 94,500 incoming links, Purevolume.com has 5,970, and Stereokiller.com has 12, of which 4 unique. I don't find the article particularly NPOV, but I am not convinced it has a place within Wiki. My vote is Delete, obviously. Ohconfucius 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Reads like spam, nn site. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ohconfucius has said everything, I was thinking and all though I am no expert on the matter, I feel this article has no place on Wikipedia and does not meet the guidelines. J.J.Sagnella 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I used to have to go to the train station to look in the paper or a record shop for concert listings. Not anymore. Thanks to stereokiller. The people that book shows use this site to post dates and flyers. Plus everyone is always talking about music, i've learned alot about hardcore music/emo music/heavy music/metal music/Screamo ain't real!/Punk Rock Music/Hip Hop/Indie Rock Music. Thanks Mr. Brickhouse! Keep it going, Brah! Don't let the white man keep you down!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.49.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18 11:16:31 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Advertisement. LoomisSimmons 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant spam. Pathlessdesert 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Srose and others. 1ne 21:51, 20 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.
{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geriatric1927}}
[edit] Websites
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abandonia_Reloaded
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
This article, as I've stated again and again, seems to not be so much an encyclopedia article as it is a slight bit of a vanity article by the fans of this website. This website has gained a few awards from a site known as DaFastLane, but I haven't been able to locate any information about DaFastLane on Wikipedia (aside from the article proposed for deletion here) or Google (a few hits), and it isn't listed on Alexa. They won five awards in one year, but that does not yet qualify them for notability under WP:WEB, which no other eligibility requirements are met on either.
Until they win these DaFastLane awards again next year, or until they satisfy the requirements another way, I feel it's safe to say that the article deserves deletion. Sephylight 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The actual Alexa rank seems to be 115,037 (as opposed to in the 14000s for Abandonia). I'm not sure it qualifies as "hugely popular", or notable. --Brianyoumans 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Not everything can be measured by an Alexa ranking, Abandonia Reloaded is a site dedicated to freeware games which is in itself a niche market, it is one of the biggest sites in his class providing FREE valuable content to it's visitors through the means of reviews and screenshots. I think this point alone justifies to have Abandonia Reloaded as it's own article. Also even though it might be written by fans (as I imagine is the case for most articles on wikipedia) of the site, the article is written from a neutral point of view. Braindead1 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - Still, there are standards for what is notable and what isn't, and the site in question hasn't qualified yet under those standards. Merge it with Abandonia
- Keep - While the site isn't the most popular by Alexa rankings, it is important to note that the site has gone from being completely unknown to achieve an Alexa rank of 114,065 (as of writing) in just a little over a year. Which in itself is quite the feat, and even though the site was created by four people who originated from Abandonia, the two sites are completely different and cater to completely different groups of net-users. Which goes to show that AR has managed to make a name for itself. Another point is that there wasn't really a Freeware center, before AR was created. Generally you had six options before, if you wanted a freeware game, and they were all pretty limited. You could either go to the AGS community or AGI community and get adventure games, go to RPG Maker and get RPGs, go to the Game Maker community and locate games that are mostly puzzle oriented, go to HOTU and try to locate the freeware games in the sea of abandonware (which are mostly AGS, AGI and RPG Maker games), or you could type "freeware" in Google and hope that you would find something you liked after several hours of tiresome searching. AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site, regardless of age, engine and genre. And due to that diversity the site has active producers with experience from game making in AGS, AGI, Game Maker, as well as independent producers who created their own games from scratch. And while HOTU does have a mix of freeware too, that site isn't revolving around such games. AR is the only site that focuses solely on showcasing these games, and a lot of effort goes into showcasing each game as best as possible, including high-quality banners. Abandonia Reloaded also focuses on helping people create their own games, using whatever engine they themselves want to use (or create). As such, I think the site is worthy to have its own page on Wikipedia. Tom Henrik
- Keep - It's difficult to measure anything's notability merely through awards or publications, or by statistics. In fact, WP:WEB clearly states that it is meant as a guideline, not as an absolute. The discussion linked to that guideline also shows that even amongst the more dedicated editors, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes notability. Abandonia: Reloaded is a site that is a part of a niche as it is dedicated to showcasing freeware productions, and it is also part of a growing movement to bring these productions to the general populace. The purpose of Abandonia Reloaded, and the purpose of this Wiki article on Abandonia Reloaded is not to advertise or promote traffic (AR is not a commercial endeavor), but rather to educate and inform; which, as I understand it, is the purpose of Wikipedia itself. Allow the editors to revise the article to prevent any tone issues, and expand it so that it may even better fulfill that purpose. Deletion is unnecessary, and considering the site's growth in the last year (from 440,000 to 114,000 in Alexa ranking since January, and from 115,000 to 114,000 in the last month alone), it would likely just be reinstated once this question of ranking is less of an issue, in any case. Taikara 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - As per what Taikara said. Guidelines are guidelines, not specific rules. --Abi79 06:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Considering that Abandonia Reloaded has been online for a year and 3 months thus far and to grow that much during that time surely shows a demand for what is being offered. Considering that the site continues to grow and is getting increased views as time is progressing also adds to the fact that the entry should stay. The wiki entry as Taikara has stated is more to educate and inform than to advertise. The wiki will be expanded as time progresses, and the rule that is being expressed for deletion as has been said, is more a guideline than anything and with all the site has managed to accomplish in such a short time, definitely think it deserves it's own entry.DeathDude 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is perhaps notable that the above comment is DeathDude's first and only edit to Wikipedia, and that Taikara and Tom Henrik have edited this discussion, the article itself, and nowhere else.Brianyoumans 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is also perhaps notable that Wikipedia is an open project that claims an attitude of anti-elitism in editing. Therefore, it should not matter that I (or my fellow discussion contributors) have edited only one article, or offered my opinion in only one article of deletion debate. However, if it would somehow give my opinion more "power" (though by the definition of anti-elitism, it shouldn't), I can easily copy edit and/or expand other articles (and in fact, I already have). However, in my (apparently less valuable) opinion, it seems that if people care enough about the article to contribute to the discussion regarding its potential deletion, then those opinions should not be completely ignored due to lack of prolificness. Taikara 06:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've been spending some time reading over the guidelines and principles of Wikipedia, and as Taikara has mentioned, anti-elitism is not an idea that Wikipedia (or it's founder, Jimbo Wales) support. Jimbo has the only set principles for how to operate Wikipedia in his user page, and it says, amongst other things: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." By giving our oppinions lesser value, because we are new to the project is completely against the open-ness and ideology of Wikipedia. And just for reference, just like Taikara, I have been active in other articles in the past, but I wasn't registered then - so you'll have to use my IP if you want a list. But, yes, this is the only discussion I have attended, because I feel that, for once, I have something to contribute to the discussion at hand. Tom Henrik 12:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is perhaps notable that the above comment is DeathDude's first and only edit to Wikipedia, and that Taikara and Tom Henrik have edited this discussion, the article itself, and nowhere else.Brianyoumans 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - There're several reasons why this page's not meeting the requirements, even though they've been claimed to be true.
For one, those so-called five awards don't belong to Reloaded. They belong mostly to a person, not a site, that person being Kosta, for the work and effort he's put in Abandonia. It's quite pathetic that Reloaded calls his awards as theirs and use them to claim rights on a page on here. The only award that does go to the site, is only a nomination, not an actual award. It needs to be mentioned that for the DaFastLane Awards, anybody can nominate anybody, and the people from Reloaded've all nominated Reloaded for as many things as they could, of which this one got pulled through. Same goes with that "Most helpful scener" award. As Abandonware's spread out over multiple communities, the scener who can have most people vote for him, will win that one, even though I can name ten sceners that're far more helpful, and that's just from one community. The only person that actually's an established value in the scene, is Kosta, who did deserve the awards he got. Those still aren't awards for Reloaded, but for Kosta. In other words, all those so-called awards're self-induced by Reloaded itself, which I don't think will make them count at all.
Another is their so-called claim to be the first site dedicated to freeware games. I don't know where they got that, and everybody knows that's a lie. They even have affiliates on their main page, linking to other freeware sites that've been 'round far longer, so either they don't know their own site or they're lying badly 'bout that.
Yet another thing, which goes hand in hand with the previous part, but seems to've been used as a separate reason, is that they claim that before Reloaded, you had to search the AGS, AGI and Gamemaker communities, and aside from that, using Google. So far, they've pretty much only used the AGS community, so that's been untrue, plus, if they think that's the only way to find freeware games, it just shows the site won't live long enough to become notable, as those that run it show they don't understand what they're focusing on. There are far more ways to get to freeware than just those three, and that's the very basics that should be known to run such a site for a longer period of time.
As far as the notability goes, they have a bit of a point. I know some of my friends know that site, and I know a few freeware game developers that've been in touch with them, and they all think the site provides lowest-quality information (up to the point that some games' information's all in Engrish) and's generally an insult to both the developers as to the games themselves, so they do know the site, but prefer to stay as far away from it as possible. Also, those freeware game developers they did get in touch with, were mostly, if not all, brought in touch with that site by a member they kicked out a long time ago, and although they haven't been in touch with any of those freeware developers, they do seem to claim his work as theirs whenever they can.
Another thing you can notice if you dig around on their and Abandonia's forums, is that they have a high tendency to mob whenever something or somebody has an opinion that goes against them. It's already happening on here, and you can be sure they'll bring more of their croonies in to increase the number of people that back their view up, but always just say the same thing (like Deathdude). So be aware of that. You might see five-six voices here, but they're still just one and a couple of puppets. --195.144.90.5 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It may or may not be relevant, but the IP of the above poster matches the IP of the mentioned member who was "kicked out", and it seems like more of a personal rant than an attempt to address the issue at hand. To address some of the (fairly decent) points mentioned, however:
-
- It's not relevant indeed, except for that it gives a proper view of the matter, not the heavily-coloured, holier-than-thou view that's given by the AR mob.
- It is not stated in the article that any of Kosta's awards belong to AR.
-
- It is stated that AR has won "several awards" and it has a link to "Abandonia Reloaded's awards", which clearly shows Kosta's awards there.
- It was also not stated in the article that AR is the first site dedicated to freeware, however, I have added a bit to makes sure it is perfectly clear that is not the case.
-
- Tom Henrik said this a bit higher: "AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site"
- It is stated in the article that there is a large ratio of adventure games. However, from the references of the games in the content section of the article, there is obviously more than "just" AGS games on the site.
-
- That's true. The ratio's been going from 1/2 AGS games to 1/3th slowly, but quite some people on the forums've been complaining that Abandonia Reloaded should've been called Abandonia AGS or Abandonia Adventures throughout its history, and they all've been kicked out for it. The ratio always've shown this to be a problem, but's always been ignored up til recently, so you can't possibly say it hasn't been focusing on AGS and not on any other engine.
-
- The issue being discussed here is not quality, or methodology, or the history with the above poster, or his issues with the person who won that "most helpful scener" award or the site itself, as the article makes no mention of any of those. The issue at hand is notability, and the above poster admittedly states that he considers AR to have some notability. Taikara 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The issue being discussed here is whether or not the page meets Wikipedia requirements. Nor the awards, nor how "special" AR is, nor its notability (as those friends of mine weren't more than five, which can hardly apply as being "notable") That is also what I'm addressing here. If you call countering fake arguments and trying to win a discussion by dropping in as many people that parrot what you want them to say with actual facts a grudge, then yep, I'm talking out of a grudge here.--195.144.90.5 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- We get it, you had issues with the AR community, and you're doing your best to get the article deleted. However, the bottom line here is that all of your complaints are fully fixable without resorting to the deletion of the article, as per WP:DEL. The notability issue is what is being addressed in this AfD discussion - and that is an actual fact. Taikara 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- What's having had issues with the community got to do with this? I was talking about why the page doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards. So far, the "being special", the awards and the notability've been claimed as reasons for that. I don't understand what you think I'm talking about, but that's what this entire discussion's been about. If breaking those Wikipedia policies can be fixed without deleting the page, then please, feel free to let us know how. --195.144.90.5 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I already have... it's called editing. But as a suggestion, you could probably start by actually reading the WP:DEL policy, where it clearly states that articles lacking NPOV and containing accuracy issues do not necessarily need to be deleted. However, I think that your objection to the article being kept is quite clear (and we'll just pretend you're refering to notability, and nothing else, as all the other complaints do not require deletion). No need to continue beating a dead horse, unless that's just how you get your kicks. Taikara 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- What's having had issues with the community got to do with this? I was talking about why the page doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards. So far, the "being special", the awards and the notability've been claimed as reasons for that. I don't understand what you think I'm talking about, but that's what this entire discussion's been about. If breaking those Wikipedia policies can be fixed without deleting the page, then please, feel free to let us know how. --195.144.90.5 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- We get it, you had issues with the AR community, and you're doing your best to get the article deleted. However, the bottom line here is that all of your complaints are fully fixable without resorting to the deletion of the article, as per WP:DEL. The notability issue is what is being addressed in this AfD discussion - and that is an actual fact. Taikara 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The issue being discussed here is whether or not the page meets Wikipedia requirements. Nor the awards, nor how "special" AR is, nor its notability (as those friends of mine weren't more than five, which can hardly apply as being "notable") That is also what I'm addressing here. If you call countering fake arguments and trying to win a discussion by dropping in as many people that parrot what you want them to say with actual facts a grudge, then yep, I'm talking out of a grudge here.--195.144.90.5 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It may or may not be relevant, but the IP of the above poster matches the IP of the mentioned member who was "kicked out", and it seems like more of a personal rant than an attempt to address the issue at hand. To address some of the (fairly decent) points mentioned, however:
I see that I have to both apologize and clarify my earlier statement. (Hopefully without going too far of topic from the discussion at hand). When I said that "Another point is that there wasn't really a Freeware center, before AR was created." and "AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site, regardless of age, engine and genre." I did not mean that AR was the very first freeware site to have been created. Far from it. What I meant was that AR is the most notable of the lot. If you do a quick Alexa ranking with other sites, you'll find that no-one is ranked as high as AR. (Apart from HOTU, but that isn't a freeware only dedicated site. It just have a lot of freeware games thrown into the mix).
-
- Traffic Rank for gamehippo.com: 63,957 and Traffic Rank for caiman.us: 31,873 seems to be higher. Besides, if you don't mean that AR is the first freeware site, then it's no use in actually saying it is, as it'll only mislead people that don't know about it.
For instance, www.BigBlueCup.com (The AGS official homepage) has an Alexa rating of 120 353, yet is has a Wikipedia page of its own.
-
- On the other hand, AGS's been mentioned on various independant sites and's bound to have various independant publications, which's another way besides Alexa ranking to be worthy of a Wikipedia article.
There is no doubt that AGS deserves the page, but from a purely Alexa statistical point of view, AR should deserve it more. So, just having a good Alexa ranking should not be the only criteria for an Wikipedia article (as there would be no discussion whether AR deserved it or not, then), but in my mind in order to deserve an article, the site should offer something that no-one else does, and that makes it unique.
-
- The policies're clear on what makes a site apply for being worthy of an article on here and what not. Besides, even if going aside from the policies is a way, then that reason still doesn't apply for AR, as there're other, more well-known sites that've been 'round far longer that offer the same thing.
In AR's case, this uniqueness is found in the effort placed into each single update,
-
- This effort exists out of "Requirements: Processor recommended", "Bit cheap some enemies" along with other Engrish, leaving entire desktops in the screenshots, so you can even see what song the person that took that screenshot was listening to and a whole lot of empty fields in each information part then? Plus all the mess-ups in the updates themselves?
the interviews with the makers, the diversity of games hosted (in terms of engine and genres)
-
- Again, check the ratio of adventure games (which're pretty much all AGS games) against the other games. I wouldn't exactly call diversity of engine and genre a strong point of AR.
and the banners made for the games. I know that there is an overload of adventure games on the site, and we are trying to fix that. However, as AR is a community driven project, we showcase what people review. As long as we get in more adventure games, than other games - we will continue to put out more adventures.
-
- If you check those submissions, that community seems to exist out of Deathdude then. That's one person, who's part of the staff. One person and an occasional passer-by isn't exactly a community, and if that one person's part of the crew, he'd know that there're too many AGS games on there in comparisson with the other genres/engines. In other words, it doesn't exactly show to be a community-driven project, and the focus on one specific engine instead of an equal share of all genres and engines is the site's choice.--Kon-Tiki 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (aka [User:195.144.90.5|195.144.90.5])
If you take a look at the forum topic in which we ask the public for help ( http://www.reloaded.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=116 ), you will see that the number of Adventure games on that list is very small in comparrison to the other genres. (If the above link is against the rules of this discussion, then I apologize, and a mod should feel free to edit it away). So, in conclusion, I apologize for the above statements that might have been confusing, but I hope that I have managed to get across my views for why I believe that AR deserves an article of its own (and not just be merged with Abandonia).Tom Henrik 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Just to make a note of it, against WP:TPG, Kon-Tiki has been editing into other people's comments in this discussion, making the flow of discussion a bit more confusing than necessary. Please be aware that the indented, unsigned comments within a few comments above belong to Kon-Tiki (who is also 195.144.90.5) --Taikara | Talk 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Taken from [6] (fourth item): (...) If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).--Kon-Tiki 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Kon-Tiki, below the comment you are responding to, not within. You see, by editing your response into their comment, it becomes unclear who is actually responding, as the individual sections of your comments are not signed. It's kind of like kindergarten - write your name on your things, and keep your hands in your own personal space and off of other people's things. I would hope you could comprehend that basic common courtesy, but please pardon me for attempting to inform others who may be reading this discussion what has occured for their benefit. Taikara | Talk 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's comprehendible and clear enough this way, as the flow obviously shows two blocks, not one. If I'd've used various amounts of indention, it'd be weird, but it's crystal clear the way it is now and has nothing to do with lack common courtesy or any other insults you're throwing at me.If you're so set on proper formatting, you might want to tell Tom to put a bulleting in front of his comment, though, as that does disturb the flow, as nobody can tell where the previous comment stopped and his starts, except from reading through and seeing where the context claims a new comment. --Kon-Tiki 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Kon-Tiki, below the comment you are responding to, not within. You see, by editing your response into their comment, it becomes unclear who is actually responding, as the individual sections of your comments are not signed. It's kind of like kindergarten - write your name on your things, and keep your hands in your own personal space and off of other people's things. I would hope you could comprehend that basic common courtesy, but please pardon me for attempting to inform others who may be reading this discussion what has occured for their benefit. Taikara | Talk 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Taken from [6] (fourth item): (...) If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).--Kon-Tiki 20:26, 5 September 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.
- 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 = KEEP. -Doc 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Information Clearing House
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
First Deletion Reason – violates WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria, because the ICH is not the subject of “multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” In addition, the ICH does not meet WP:WEB criterion of mention in “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations” (emphasis added). Reliable here is defined under WP:RS, which does not include blogs and other sources without editorial oversight. Nor does the article provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section, as is required under WP:WEB. In all, there are only 416 hits for the phrase (“Information Clearing House” and “World News Daily”) with blogs included. By comparison, the completely non-notable jackass “Morton Devonshire” gets 1170 hits, and I wouldn’t start an article on that joker if my life depended on it. Morton devonshire 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is that so? 416 hits? Strange, i got 954 000 hits. Or 505 000 hits, if you try another way.--Striver 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please address the argument. It fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria. If you don't think I've quoted the policy word for word, take a look yourself. Morton devonshire 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Paul Craig Roberts [7] writes for ICH. That should settle notability. --Striver 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep - On Alexa, I get a rank of 12,075 - seems pretty popular. --Brianyoumans 04:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The sources range from major Us newspapers websites - national and regional, international newspapers websites like The Independant, Haaretz, Toronto Star. I live in Canada, I read international news from various sources and I can tell you ICH is what is says it is. Some right-wing extremists / neo-con fascists might not like that this site is one of the few news sources that brings an alternative to the war cheerleaders that dominate the US news space, but we can't expect them to be fair, as they support an illegal regime who stole two national elections. — Possible single purpose account: 70.55.61.212 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete - "Seems pretty popular" does not address the valid issues raised by the nom. The 954,000 number above is not selective for this site: it is a return on every mention of a clearing house of any kind, not the one referring to World News Daily. The 400+ hits is more accurate, and we don't need to promote another news source that does not meet WP:RS. Sandy 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- "InformationClearingHouse.info" gives 441 000 hits. Mortons search is quite arbitrary.--Striver 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandy above; conspiracy cruft. Tom Harrison Talk 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete stop the insanity --Tbeatty 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It describes itself as One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media. - it's just another conspiracist personal website. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peephole (talk • contribs) .
- Delete in before controlled demolitions. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 01:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Yet another biased candidature. PizzaMargherita 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Please address the criteria rather than your personal feelings. Morton devonshire 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- They have already been addressed by Striver: Paul Craig Roberts [8] writes for ICH. The source is also not less reliable than other sources. Your emphasising "reliable" in the policy excerpt is not what I call proof, and the burden is on you I'm afraid. The Google hits you report are basically made up. Also your serial and POV candidatures for deletion (which are also largely absurd and unsuccessful, and therefore time wasting) diminish the credibility of any others. [9] [10] [11] PizzaMargherita 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WEB criteria focuses on the mention of the site in question in reliable mainstream sources -- that's what establishes its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, not whether the site itself is reliable. Please look at WP:WEB for further clarification. Ad hominem is irrelevant. Morton devonshire 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete, per nominator and argument raised by Sandy. -- Samir धर्म 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Alexa states: "Other sites that link to this site: 4,165 ". That is more than enough to make it notable. --Striver 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep!!! A welcome alternative to the mainstream media. Shows the true nature of war.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep: From Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, to Paul Craig Roberts, what more do you want? Google search for information clearing house gives the site in the two first hits and produces thousands of other links.— Possible single purpose account: 128.110.251.138 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep : The site is a lving legend , This is not a debate it is a political battle , Freedom of speech must be maintained and removing ICH would surely be followed by an attempt to remove LGF. The site is worthy of its place on Wikepedia amd this pathatic debate should not have even began. I wonder which little neocon came up with this bright idea to restrict information that they would rather others did not know. The site is up their with the best, its sources , contributers and reputation is second to none ... can we stop this nonsense http://terrorism-news.blogspot.com/ — Possible single purpose account: 82.16.235.194 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: This site aggregates articles of a particular philosophical position and is extremely valuable. If you wish to question the validity of the articles, I assume you intend to treat Fox News in a similar fashion? I'm surprised and concerned that consideration would be given to it's removal - it's one of only three sources that I rely on daily for news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: I suspect the reason why some want the ICH entry deleted is because it provides an antidote to the deluge of propaganda we are fed every day, and therefore jars with their preferences. There are many original articles posted to ICH as first, or first equal, publisher and therefore it is worthy of its modest entry. If ICH goes then so should Alternet, Indymedia, Aljazeerah.info, and all the rest. Wikipedia has bigger problems than this issue, especially the tendentious character of many articles on controversial topics. On Google with this query, which excludes the site itself: -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House” Results 361 - 370 of about 911,000 for -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House”. (0.26 seconds) Morton Devonshire is a Jackass by his own words. — Possible single purpose account: 203.110.29.3 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- 'Keep'. It is a far more reliable source of world information than any other I have found on the net. It is a true antidote for the corporate media which tends to publish mostly government approved propaganda. If the NYT or WP or Fox rate an entry (and they fail every criteria for puplishing "verified" information) then Information Clearing House must have its entry retained. The fact that Information Clearing House has an entry is not an endorsment of its publishing philosophy. It is worth pointing out to the geniuses at Wiki that "verifiability" implies a statement of truth not that the statement comes from a "reliable source" even reliabe sources have been known to mislead. Learn your Latin. I would also point out that the reasons given for deletion are bogus. Steve Lane 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Steve Lane — Possible single purpose account: Steve Lane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep: Who needs YOUR web rules? The original anarchy of the internet is the best illustration of a free market in action. Markets are inevitably self-organizing to the best interest of participants, provided state control and corporate-backed state regulation/manipulation don't interfere (Wikipedia is a prime example). Those who ask that ICH or any other web page conform to the standard seek just such control and manipulation. Freedom is present when one is free to say no. The free market will determine if ICH is relevant, not some geek-speak defined standard. Apparently, some among us can handle "free-markets", just not ones that involve the free exchange of ideas. Chalk it up another effort by the stato-cons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP: Who made you the censors of what any one of us reads? ICH provides a valuable source of information that is not widely available thru the mainstream media. I for one would much rather receive my daily news summary from ICH than from MSNBC, FOX, or any of the other biased media sources. Whether or not you agree with the content or the opinions of the contributors, ICH has the right under the constitution of this country to express their opinions and those of their contributors. This is what its all about!!! Thanks, Larry Hearold (lhearold@micro-consultants.com). — Possible single purpose account: 151.203.197.188 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete. This site is not sufficiently notable, and the article lacks independent, reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Google site:informationclearinghouse.info returns 13 700 hits. U236 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: U236 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- KEEP: We live in a highly polarized world where commercial media is largely no longer used to educate and report, but instead targeted to form opinion and guide the reader toward the desired result. Corporate media has uncritically helped the current US government spread misinformation about Iraq in order to get the desired result of war backed by the American people. Corporate Media is largely responsible for misleading the populance as well as lawmakers, and therefore the statement “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles,... television documentaries,...” is an oxymoron in itself. Corporate Media is the modern State Propaganda tool. ICH uses news sources that include foreign media as well as providing original editorial content. It is a legitimate form of media and should therefore be kept. Jared Kenwell (jkenwell@telus.net) — Possible single purpose account: 198.166.16.87 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete. Not verifiably notable; lacks credible references. (Closing admin: Please watch for socks.) -AED 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I fail to see why ICH shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to translate the original complaint into simple English for me. Is it a question of whether ICH presents "reliable" or "verifiable" information? I don't read the mainstream press or watch TV news because I don't trust the mass media to give me an honest report of what's going on in the world. Instead I look through the offerings at ICH and several other sites each day and click on the links that interest me. Some are news items and some are opinion pieces. IMO, the news articles often have an implied pov, while most opinion pieces include factual information to support their views. I'm old enough to distinguish between fact and opinion, and between one person's alleged facts and those which can be substantiated. What I'm saying is that I feel ICH serves a valuable service to the community and I don't automatically agree with everything I see there. Manjusri053 05:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Manjusri053 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- EXCUSE ME! Someone around here is being dishonest, saying that my account is "single purpose" and I'm a new participant who's "made little or no other contributions outside this topic." I opened this accoount last November after I forgot my previous account name, and anyone can see that I participated in the editing or discussion of other pages prior to this one. I would appreciate it if the person who slandered me this way would remove their disparaging notations. Thank you. Manjusri053 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The tag doesn't say you are new. It says you have made little or no contributions outside this topic. You have 12 edits in 10 months. That is "little or no contributions." There is no slander and there is nothing wrong with having low edit counts. Just that for assessing consensus of the community, closing admins can discount non-established users when determining consensus. --Tbeatty 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Manjusri053. The template is ill-conceived and is anyway incorrectly used in many occasions in this page. My understanding is that SPA means that the account has been created on purpose in order to vote for this AfD, i.e. the template is meant to warn that somebody might be creating SPAs specifically to "vote" more than once in this article, which is clearly not the case in many cases. I trust the judgment of the closing admin who will unfortunately have to check each claimed SPA. PizzaMargherita 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The tag doesn't say you are new. It says you have made little or no contributions outside this topic. You have 12 edits in 10 months. That is "little or no contributions." There is no slander and there is nothing wrong with having low edit counts. Just that for assessing consensus of the community, closing admins can discount non-established users when determining consensus. --Tbeatty 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: the description already offers a reasonable disclaimer; at this point, it should be for the reader to decide what is "reliable." To censor this is to play politics and that would make Wikipedia, itself, unreliable. 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Taliot — Possible single purpose account: Taliot (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Keep Information Clearing House is a better source of information than most of the 'mainstream' drivel that is fed to us a news. I don't even agree with everything I read on it and I often end up doing a wider search on topics which I find particularly interesting. I am not surprised that someone out there is trying to get it kicked off wikipedia but I don't think it is wikipedia's role to act as a censor every time someone reads something they disagree with.Puffinbirds 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Puffinbirds (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: As mentioned before "reliability" is not guaranteed ... even by NYT (remember Judith Miller's story about WMD in Iraq!). This article fits perfectly well in the context of alternate media. By definition, alternate media does not aim for popularity like the mainstream media which rely on advertisement revenue and have to be "popular". IMHO, this site provides one type of viewpoint and I find it valuable. The article seems to be neutral in mentioning that it has leftist slant. So visitors have been warned about the orientation. Viplav 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Viplav (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: Information Clearing house serves the twin functions of publishing articles by such notables as Robert Fisk, and preserving otherwise short-lived (rotated out) news items from other news sources. Its also notable for presenting views froma wide range of different countries. Its clearly a notable site. As others have already said, one wonders whether the RFD is actually about notability or is in fact about the content. Keep political deletion of opposing viewpoints out of Wikipedia. --Nantonos 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) contribs
KEEP Is this a joke? According to the WP:NOT page — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. 1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Also:
What your user page is not
Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see User page help.
And yet this page is allowed? The cheek!
Check out the list of friends in connection to this "discussion".
Regards the deletion process
Abuse of deletion process
... XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.
The article on ICH is a concise summary of the site. According to alexa, the site has about 1/10th to 1/20th the reach of a major "left leaning" paper like The Guardian. ICH is however more popular than the notable climate site Realclimate and (interestingly) about 1/3rd as popular as The Whitehouse. It has a similar reach to Znet a website of comparable political orientation. Google indicates that 7,340 sites link to ICH, although Amazon.com suggests 4165
A search at Amazon.com reveals that 40 recent books make reference to ICH, suggesting that it serves as a public searchable archive for articles, pictures and pdf files. This fact suggests it is a noteworthy site, at least for authors of popular history or opinion. Unlike Realclimate, which has been noticed by scholarly sources such as Nature ICH has not had similar recognition and is generally (like wikipedia) a tertiary source.
And yes, I may be a user who has made little or no other contributions outside this topic... I'm not white-anting the site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP This is a useful source of mainstream news articles and leftist comment that gives a useful slant not found elsewhere - helps me keep an open mind on the big events that governments and big media spin in their own way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP The ICH website has been destroyed numerous times by politically motivated crackers full of hate. This attack on ICH in wikipedia is probably just one more part of the actions targetting such sites and people who run them and contribute to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP: What ostensibly validates existence at Wikipedia is "reliable published works" in newspapers, etc. There is an article in today's ICH, http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?optionfiltered=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=135 which explores the removal of a story from the NYT website, available in the UK, as it is in the U.S. The story is removed only to UK readers. In addition, "The Paper of Record" was not even delivered to the UK, yet the story that was blocked was printed by other papers that depend on "reliable published works." The NYT continues to sully its supposed reputation by this blatant censorship. Why on earth would Wikipedia want to follow that path and call it 'upstanding'? Is ICH to be censored because they, somehow, do not follow the shameful and unreliable paths that are taken by too many other "reliable published works"? This self-serving phrase is like a well-known other: "All the News That's Fit to Print." Which is to say, neither of these phrases are accurate or truthful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP It strikes me as unreal that this is even considered for deletion. Ryz 10:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just more conspiracy theory cruftiness.--MONGO 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is crufty some kind of code word? I note it has a wiki entry. WP:NOT 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) .
KEEP ICH has an unbiased mechanism for posting comments. And mis-representations which rarely happen are pointed out in the comments by the huge audience it has. ICH actively informs and retracts any misrepresentations if they occur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.169.127.6 (talk • contribs) .
Author of "Is this a Joke" , 203.164.7.222: I have made changes to the article in question. The initial complaint featured the issues notablility and reliability. I really don't see how notability can be a problem.
"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." WP:WEB
I think the 40 citations in books distributed by Amazon covers that. Yes it links to "conspiracy theory cruftiness" administrator MONGO, but many articles are sourced from the mainstream press. Presumably, without reading, these books are all crufty by association. Just because a theory/opinion is fringe or not mainstream does not defacto make it wrong - only unpleasant, disturbing or distasteful... and maybe later, wrong. It took a long time to accept the loony idea of continental drift. If ICH is considered an unreliable third source what hope wikipedia? See also the talk page for the ICH entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia for sites that are, in my opinion, far less worthy than ICH; examples: Suprnova.org and The Register. If ICH's page should go for the reasons initially claimed then plenty more should too. Further, I find it curious that critics of ICH want to have the page removed. I note that people who don't like The Register (and there's a lot of them) are not calling for the deletion of El Reg's (?) page; rather they call for the page to be edited to have a critical rather than neutral tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep At the very least ICH will have significant historical value. ICH is one of my most trusted sources of information. It is more reliable than the Main Stream Media at this time, therefore if it is removed, then everything from Fox News (Faux News) and the networks should be eliminated as well. Mark Rehl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs) .
Keep I am a retired university professor, and my daily sources of national and international news are NPR, the International Herald Tribune, ICH and Truthout (an online source of articles, similar to ICH). Although ICH occasionally has links to liberal polemics (which I ignore), its great value to me is found in news stories and analyses of world events from a wide variety of journalistic sources such as AP, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Guardian, Asia Times, etc. Joseph Martos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josephmartos (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Josephmartos (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep ICH is much more reliable and better news source then FOX News, which is listed on Wikipedia, so if you are not deleting FOX then you must keep ICH. Adnan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep Let's keep politics out of Wikipedia. Please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.73.228.120 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 72.73.228.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete We should not be discussing the merits of ICH per se, but the merits of the Wikipedia Article. The wikipedia article is far from neutral, listing only the merits of ICH, and none of the criticism. The Wikipedia article on ICH is also in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" with an overly extensive list of media links at the end of the article. Sort of like a "hah see, these are our sources, we are legit."12.108.61.66 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— 12.108.61.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep If there's an NPOV problem with the article it can be hashed out in discussions and fixed. I fail to see why ICH should be deleted altogether - sounds a little fishy... AND - is wikipedia going to get rid of all the websites that are less known than ICH? GNN.tv has a page, stormfront.org has a page, infowars.com has a page, alternet.org has a page.. etc. etc. Persona o 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Persona o (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
-
- Comment Anon IP adress removed the SPA tag, resigned the comment as anon IP and then User:Persona o resigned it again as Persona o. Not sure why. Readding the SPA tag.
Keep As a journalist, I use ICH almost every day to find interesting, provocative and relevant facts, information and perspectives. All readers of Wikipedia should have the opportunity to learn about ICH. I do not agree with every article that ICH publishes, but I can still recognize that it is a really important information service. Keeping a Wikipedia article about ICH does not introduce "politics" into Wikipedia -- but deleting an article about ICH certainly would. Pmontague 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Pmontague (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep - In my reading, ICH meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and reliability, certainly as much as or more so than many main stream media outlets. Is the political slant of ICH the real issue for those wanting deletion? I note that Wikipedia articles exist for NewsMax and WorldNetDaily which are NOT proposed for deletion (nor should they be). Therefore the attempt to delete the article on ICH may be a politically motivated misuse of the deletion process. --Nodal Plane 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nodal Plane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell. And a revolutionary act needs to be into Wikipedia. Stop the censure by criminal neo cons --Neymare 17:56, 31 August 2006 (From France) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep - encyclopaedia worth --217.83.122.92 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 217.83.122.92 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Wikipedia is no place for a revolution, nor (I realize now) is it a place for deleting viewpoints we don't agree with. I retract my previous opinion of delete in favor of Keep, but edit to better reflect the neutrality standards of Wikipedia12.108.61.66 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 12.108.61.66 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete - per nom. Also note the following entry on the website: "Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views." which links to this page. Nice, eh? Crockspot 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have provided references for orignial articles created by multiple notable persons (notable enough to have their own article) for this specific site. This should render void all above claims of non-notability.--Striver 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Of course, that's not what the nomination is about. It's about the notability of the site, not people mentioned on the site. Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT Morton devonshire 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not agree with your interpretation, but in either case, i have added external sites linking to it, like Counterpunch and CSM.--Striver 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- What, not Prisonplanet.com? Morton devonshire 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot about that. Didn't stumble on any links on my google search. --Striver 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- What, not Prisonplanet.com? Morton devonshire 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not agree with your interpretation, but in either case, i have added external sites linking to it, like Counterpunch and CSM.--Striver 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, that's not what the nomination is about. It's about the notability of the site, not people mentioned on the site. Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT Morton devonshire 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wikipeida isn't a reliable source for notability. My own opnion (which is about as valuable as Wikipedia's) is that they would fail the objective notability test as I don't see many awards or reviews of their authored works that are relevant to ICH. Whether they would survive an AfD popularity test is a different quesiton. As you see here, we have a lot of motivated one time accounts. For example, Roberts is notable in his own right but his sole contributions to ICH do not necessarily make them notable (ICH carrying articles that are published elsewhere does not make ICH notable). --Tbeatty 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Christian Science Monitor CounterPunch are very notable in themselves, they have nothing to do with wikipedia. And George Galloway, Ray McGovern and John Pilger also very notable on their own. --Striver 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I checked the Christian Science Monitor hyperlink mentioned, and it says nothing about ICH. Morton devonshire 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look again. --Striver 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I encourage everyone to have a look. Morton devonshire 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can't spot it either. There is a link to an article on ICH but no actual information about the site. Is the link what we should consider a "non-trivial published work" about the site? The site does not appear to be the subject of the article at all. WP:WEB explicitly says trivial coverage such as reporting the internet address do no impart notability. Weregerbil 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I reworded it to reflect that. --Striver 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reworded trivial coverage still doesn't bring it towards WP:WEB. Weregerbil 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree if i also could pretend that it was the single claim of notability the article makes. In any case WP:WEB is just a guidline.--Striver 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to pretend anything. Let's discuss it directly without pretending! Does the article pass WP:WEB? Weregerbil 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It could be argued that it does not in the current form, but it irrelevant to the afd, since it is a mere guidling, intended to help, and not a wikipedia policy. A wikipedia policy would for example be Notability, and this site hosts original material from multiple Notable persons. And that is enough in my view, and the view of the people voting "keep" --Striver 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow you. Notability guidelines for web sites are irrelevant when notability of web sites is discussed?? Weregerbil 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, poor wording, i meant "not critical". --Striver 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow you. Notability guidelines for web sites are irrelevant when notability of web sites is discussed?? Weregerbil 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It could be argued that it does not in the current form, but it irrelevant to the afd, since it is a mere guidling, intended to help, and not a wikipedia policy. A wikipedia policy would for example be Notability, and this site hosts original material from multiple Notable persons. And that is enough in my view, and the view of the people voting "keep" --Striver 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to pretend anything. Let's discuss it directly without pretending! Does the article pass WP:WEB? Weregerbil 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree if i also could pretend that it was the single claim of notability the article makes. In any case WP:WEB is just a guidline.--Striver 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reworded trivial coverage still doesn't bring it towards WP:WEB. Weregerbil 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I reworded it to reflect that. --Striver 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look again. --Striver 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I checked the Christian Science Monitor hyperlink mentioned, and it says nothing about ICH. Morton devonshire 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Christian Science Monitor CounterPunch are very notable in themselves, they have nothing to do with wikipedia. And George Galloway, Ray McGovern and John Pilger also very notable on their own. --Striver 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipeida isn't a reliable source for notability. My own opnion (which is about as valuable as Wikipedia's) is that they would fail the objective notability test as I don't see many awards or reviews of their authored works that are relevant to ICH. Whether they would survive an AfD popularity test is a different quesiton. As you see here, we have a lot of motivated one time accounts. For example, Roberts is notable in his own right but his sole contributions to ICH do not necessarily make them notable (ICH carrying articles that are published elsewhere does not make ICH notable). --Tbeatty 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment; Look at all the sockpuppetry! Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think these are technically called meatpuppets. But it is pretty amazing. I think half of them think we are voting to remove ICH from the Web. --Tbeatty 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Serious editorial content. Looks fine to me. Yakuman 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- New user
Keep - There is no coherent case against the retention of ICH in Wikipedia. The charges contained in the first entry above and several supporting entries are without any credible foundation in fact. The supporting arguments are spurious for they rely entirely on the unsound presuppositions contained in the original indictment - ie. the first entry. On its face, ICH meets the criteria cited in the original charge - WP:WEB, WP:NOT and WP:RS. This case should be closed as it has no merit, whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by alchemistoxford (talk • contribs) .
- Keep - The site is non-trivial and deserves a page. Nunquam Dormio 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly notable, and the nomination seems motivated by political disagreement with its content. If that were a valid criteria for deletion, most of Wikipedia would cease to exist. Redxiv 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Some external conspiracy theory sites and opinion pieces appear to have links to the site but a link doesn't constitute being the subject of multiple non-trivial independent published works. Weregerbil 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mirror Vax 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Charles Matthews 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Above user is an ArbCom member. --Striver 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Definitely Keep--Suleyman Habeeb 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Even if the outcome of this discussion is keep, this article needs a complete overhall - it now reads like an advertisement at best. GabrielF 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Jayjg. Evolver of Borg 08:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Google counts 7,340 sites above the PR 3 threshold linking to ICH. Among the first 200 entries I checked cursorily there wasn't a single one that struck me as noteworthy, just minor blogs and conspiracy/opinion sites. The nom is correct about ICH not meeting WP:WEBs requirements. ICH is a "one man effort" indeed and needs more time to get noteworthy. btw: ICH means "I" and "ego" in German... :-) --tickle me 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- nypost.com give 21 100 hits. 1/3 of the New York Post is more than enough. --Striver 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yet another notable original writer added: Wayne Madsen--Striver 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Provides valuable perspective on the Far Right. StaticElectric 20:27, 2 September 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.
- Keep. I read lots of newspapers on line. Most of them give a very one sided view of the news. There are websites like ICH who publish a different view eg. Democracy now. And it is in Wikipedia. So I cannot understand why all this rubbish is about. Is it political agenda to take away our freedom of information? Or is it personal attack against some one who is trying to bring some sanity into the media? It will be tragic if this entry is deleted for all of us who believe in free information. Alwaysshariff 15:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current debates
- 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 clear consensus. —Xyrael / 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Loserz
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Courtesy listing, nominator did not create AfD subpage. Appears to be a non-notable webcomic. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be comic published in HS newspaper. nn. Leuko 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Is not published anywhere other than on the internet. 02:05, 25 August 2006 (PST)
— Possible single purpose account: 198.145.76.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Non-notable? 489 comics, active fanbase, been around for years, it's pretty damn notable if you ask me... Korinkami 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not published in a HS newspaper, is an active webcomic (although updates rather sporadically). No less notable than thousands of other Wikipedia pages. Ryan Magley 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Loserz is NOT published anywhere else, The comic is a web exclusive that's been going for almost six years. Yes the update schedule is a bit wonky but that's hardly a reason to remove it from Wiki.Foomartini 19:11, 25 August 2006 (EST)
- Keep As per above. Established webcomic with a large archive and fanbase. -Interested2 00:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Loserz is a free unadvertised webcomic with a large fan-base, archive, and a active community of readers. -BobmanX
— Possible single purpose account: BobmanX (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Loserz is by far one fo the best webcomics out there. saying it isn't notable is like saying Biggs and Wedge (both of which have their own Wikipedia pages) from Star wars arent notable. Also, the comic in question of being publsihed in a high school newspaper may be the one in question relating to This comic.-
SpartanGhost
— Possible single purpose account: 216.183.13.53 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete The article does not assert notability, and it has an Alexa rating of 269,761. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Alexa rating is largely irrelevant, Wikipedia has articles on other sites with lower ratings, such as Hell.com. -Interested2 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, please see my post much lower down the page, you'll see that the alternate URL for the loserz comic has a much higher alexa ranking. Fyver528 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Also note that the message board has linked to this article and that's causing all the keeps. --FlareNUKE 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The best argument for the notability of this comic is that it was in a High School newspaper? That it exists? and that it's good? There are no external sources, fails WP:V, fails WP:WEB. List of webcomics is just an advertising portal. - Hahnchen 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is an amazingly notable webcomic, that has created an enormous fanbase of diehard fans over the 6 years it has been running! User:YouAgain
- Keep Oh, come on. FlareNUKE put up this article for deletion possibly to get attention on the comic in question's forum. This is a very notable webcomic (no, not something in a high school newspaper) that used to be very high up in the rankings on several webcomic ranking sites, but gradually fell due to the writer/artist going on a several month long hiatus. It has now returned, but is still recovering. However, it is still a highly popular comic, and still active. It is apart of the webcomic group "the Gewd Guys", which is a group including webcomic goliaths such as Chugworth Academy. Do not delete this article simply because some sad little fan wanted attention on a forum. User: Snoogy — Possible single purpose account: User:Snoogy (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete. This article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Just because something has a fan base, doesn't mean it's actually notable - take a look at all of the YouTubers we've deleted - excluding, of course, the very most notable. Srose (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Wait so 40+ pages on Oral Sex, or the meaning of Dirty Sanchez or how many times a certain porn star has taken it up the ass is all fine. But a page about a Webcomic that's been going for almost six years is a no no? What the hell? The fact is that there really isn't much on Wiki that's treally important. So why axe one over another? If you're going to axe the Loserz entry then you should axe all of the Webcomic entries.
Foomartini 11:15, 28 August 2006 (EST)
-
- Comment, Foomartini, if you have anything to add, can you add it to your previous vote, instead of voting a second time? Korinkami 11:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep* Personally, I see no reason why the entry should be deleted. In my time reading and monitoring Wikis I've seen far more pointless stuff, Loserz has an active fan community and a long and proud history (six years in the webcomic world is a very long time). If you delete this page, then you might as well start deleting pages for other webcomics as well, which is just nonsensical
MyrmidonZero 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep* Notable or non-notable...is it such a bad thing to leave the article up? What's the worst that could happen? It's not hurting anybody. Anyway Loserz has been linked to several other webcomic sites, and has spawned at least 100+ fan art. It should be kept. shoes22 11:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep* Come on people. Loserz has been running for six years and has an established fanbase. There are far stupider articles on wiki out there for you to delete. Foomartini makes a really good point. Articles about pornstars and the origin of the dildo is fine but a webcomic gets deleted? Give me a break.Gigaguyser 11:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't really see a reason to make an attempt to delete an entire page, it's really a waste of time. But I hate the self-importance of author and his fans, so I'll go along with the deleters. IrkenRed 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Notable and significant fan base. Above comment is based upon irrelevant issue of how the author/fans allegedly act, so I'd have to strongly disagree with IrkenRed. I'm not a forum contributer, so my vote upon a seperate judgement basis. Fyver528 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Edit: Important comment relating to Alexa ranking The URL that the non-notability judgement was made upon was loserzcomic.com, however http://loserz.scribblekid.org/ is still widely used and was used for much longer than loserzcomic.com. It has a much higher ranking of 144,641 [15]
- Strong Keep. The comic in question not only is a notable comic in the webcomic community, holding several times high rankings in webcomic listing sites, but also has a strong active forum community that is active even when the author is on one of his many hiatuses, which are noted in the article. The webcomic is not currently a campus newspaper comic, although that's how it did start. How it began may have not been notable, but from the fans and attention Loserz has recieved it surely is notable in the webcomic community. The author is not "conceited", as I have not seen the author on this editing page. Also, the person who admittedly put the article up for deletion seems to have a bad reputation on the comics forum community. Wiki pages should not be deleted because someone doesn't like what it's about. I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be about unbiased judgements and facts, not whimsical, arbitrary selections for acceptance and deletion and such. The facts are that loserzcomic.com does have a pretty good alexa rating for a webcomic that is being independantly published on the internet. It has an active community, and has been rated highly by webcomic rating sites in the past. This should show that, among webcomics, this comic is notable. Milam 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. --- Dragonfiend 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- KeepLong running webcomic with a large archive. The reason it fell in popularity is due to the author's long hiatus, which is now over. RogerBarnett 09:41, 31st August 2006 (GMT) ---
- Keep i have no clue why anyone would want to delete one of the most popular web comics out there from wiki...
- Keep I see no problem having this article up, there seems to be NO evidence that the article is againts any rules set up by Wikipedia and has been updately daily.--Ripster40 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A whopping 188 unique Googles says this has to go. I'm sure your comic is good and all, but until you get mentioned more often it just has to go. GarrettTalk 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep: No reason to delete the entry. its just another piece of information, why remove it?
- Delete. Remove it because it's not notable. Notable doesn't mean it's been around a long time or it has an active fanbase or it's been rated highly and whether or not the author takes hiatuses is completely irrelevant. It means "it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." A lot of great things in the world aren't notable. Nothing personal fans. Flying Jazz 01:45, 2 September 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.
[edit] Fora
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Engi no jutsu
Overly lengthy entry about a non-notable Naruto role-playing forum. Reads off like an FAQ for the site, something Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:WEB test of notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
- I'm not seeing any sockpuppets, anyone care to explain? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as pure vanity. 728 Ghits, all of which appears to be from forum posts. Fails WP:WEB miserably and also runs afoul of all three principles of Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. I'll caution that we may see a bit of meatpuppetry with this nomination. --TheFarix (Talk) 10:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above notability, original research and verifiability concerns. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Violates the main three principles per theFarix, and any notability principles regardless. ColourBurst 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per TheFarix - Whpq 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity for a non-notable website. Also fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above, as it fails web. --Kunzite 12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Alexie 23:28, 31 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.
