-
Yuniti (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
cache|
AfD)
Reason for deletion no longer valid Article was originally deleted due to "lack of reliable references" and "lack of notability", new article published by a reliable reference establishes notability (
http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-6510105-12907&KPLT=2)
Marquinho 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion nothing in the "new article" to overturn a very valid and unanimous AfD. Previous article was extremely spammy and should not be undeleted under any circumstances. Besides, when a single account fights tooth-and-nail to get an article kept (look at
Marquinho's bad behaviour on the AfD) that's almost always a sign of spam/
WP:COI issues. Finally, I note that the site in question has a present Alexa rank of 454,306, not even in the top hundred thousand sites, which strongly suggests this is every bit as non-notable now as when it was deleted a couple weeks ago.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Fighting tooth and nail with logical points without taking any offense, calling names, nor insulting anyone is bad behavior? And we're using Alexa to measure a site's popularity now before it can be on Wikipedia? Since when did popularity and notability become synonymous? And what happened to following the guidelines from WP:CORP? It states 'Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"' - I'm not sure how Alexa satisfies these requirements. It also states "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations", seems that being in the top 100,000 of alexa favors larger organizations. Thirdly, it states "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources", which Yuniti has. -
Marquinho 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- ...and here we go again. All of this was fully explained to you, at considerable length, during the AfD debate. Not a single editor felt that your website met our guidelines. By coming back to DRV, you're saying that the situation has changed since the debate, which it hasn't. If anything, the graphs on Alexa show it's dwindled considerably since its peak around January. The bottom line is that it's clear that you disagree with our policies and inclusion guidelines, and you have every right to hold that opinion. However, it's been discussed and decided already, and this will remain so unless circumstances drastically change.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What, may I ask then, is "circumstances drastically change"? The problem is that the reasoning given by administrators is *not* what is written in the policies. According to
WP:CORP, yuniti is notable. According to
WP:COI, someone involved with the project may edit/create an article with editorial feedback + editing. So I meet all written policies. Am I to understand then that when yuniti is in the top 100,000 sites at alexa, I can come back and write an article about it? I'm just trying to understand what needs I have not met and need to. Thanks. -
Marquinho 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is no simple metric like x page views or y Alexa rank. It was extremely clear by unanimous decision that at the time of the AfD a couple of weeks ago, it did not meet our guidelines, and there's really nothing that's going to occur within the past few weeks (or the next few weeks) to invalidate that. The site will need to grow substantially, make a name for itself, and become part of the enduring history of the web (or within the social-networking niche, at least). The section of
WP:NOT (Wikipedia is NOT a web guide) explains that an article on a website should include "website's achievements, impact or historical significance", which would be impossible in this case as there is none yet. In addition, I strongly suggest that the webmaster of the site not edit the article due to substantial conflict of interest--the last version was pure spam, and that's part of why it was deleted. If the site becomes notable, someone else will create an article eventually.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, there is nothing substantial to the new information being presented here that would overrule the AfD.
ɑʀк
ʏɑɴ 20:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - again, fair enough, but to save both my time and the time of the wikipedia administrators in the future, I would really like to know what exactly it is the article is missing to meet requirements, so that I do not try to re-create the article until I have all that is needed. If you could give me the paragraph in the wikipedia policies which states exactly what it is this article is missing, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks -
Marquinho 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, no credible reason to overturn deletion. In answer to the question above: merely asking this question shows that you are here for the wrong reasons. "What must I do to be allowed an article on my website / band / company / whatever" is a common question, but it's a completely wrong-headed one. The way it's supposed to work is that people who are here to build an encyclopaedia notice a subject which is verifiably significant and decide to document it. What you are doing is coming here to promote your website, and asking that we tell you how to get round the policies we have to prevent people doing just that.
Guy (
Help!) 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - with all due respect, although you may know the wikipedia policies better than I, you do not know the reason I am here better than I. The reason I am here trying to write an article about Yuniti is that after seeing this list
List_of_social_networking_websites, and seeing how badly skewed and unhelpful the list is (either listing the networking sites everyone already knows about, the "big 5", or networking sites that have nothing notable about them whatsoever), I figured I could do some justice to the wikipedia community by balancing this list a little and giving it more complete (and useful) data. And how is asking the question "what am I missing" the wrong question? If I want to write an article on wikipedia, and the administrators say "your article doesn't have what it needs to have", isn't the one (and only) appropriate question "what is it missing?". I continue to get "not notable ENOUGH", "not popular ENOUGH", "not high enough ranking in Alexa", when all I can find in the wikipedia policies is that any company which is notable enough to be written about by a 2nd party is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. So I'm obviously missing something, and I would much appreciate if whatever it is I'm missing were pointed out to me, so I can either correct my mistake or wait until I can correct it. -
Marquinho 00:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- By "badly skewed" I think take it you mean that it doesn't include your site or accurately reflect your reasons for pitching into this now overcrowded marketplace. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to fix real-world problems.
Guy (
Help!) 07:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion - new article does not appear to add anything substantive to the discussion which was not covered at the AfD. I would also, on an unrelated note, mention that the behavior here has not improved. --
Haemo 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Haemo, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "behavior" - trying to argue one's point without getting defensive or trying to insult anyone, and trying to understand the opposite's side point of view is bad behavior? Should I just bow down to the powers that be without trying to understand the what or why? Isn't that completely against anything scholarly and intelligent, all of which wikipedia stands for? -
Marquinho 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - guys, this is getting a bit ridiculous. I understand your reasons for not wanting any old site to be on wikipedia, because it will cause wikipedia to be bloated - I don't see a problem with having a few sites which set themselves apart from others, but I understand your argument against it. However, when I marked this article:
Sexi_(sexual_networking_site) for deletion, my tag was removed. Am I missing something here? How is this article any different than the yuniti article I wrote? This site is far below 100,000 in alexa, the article is more like an advertisement than the yuniti article I wrote, and it has no sources. Help me out here guys, I must be missing something pretty major -
Marquinho 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Marquinho,
Sexi_(sexual_networking_site) is not eligible for
speedy deletion for web content because it asserts significance. It would be eligible for
discussion-based deletion should you wish to pursue the point further, but that would probably be taken as
disruption to make a point, rather than an honest experiment. I suggest you don't pursue it. In short, you are trying to compare two separate processes, one with very specific rules, and the other based on editor consensus (though still guided by rules). Your continued push for this article smacks of desperation rather than an attempt to understand our guidelines. --
Dhartung |
Talk 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, closure of AFD was well within bounds. New information is more than trivial but less than comprehensive. A few more articles like this and reconsideration will be worth everyone's time, but not yet. --
Dhartung |
Talk 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - thank you, Dhartung, for finally giving a concise answer with precise information as to why the Yuniti article is not acceptable. You are the first editor to give a clear and concise answer, and I greatly appreciate it. I'll drop this discussion until a future time when these requirements are met. Thanks again. -
Marquinho 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - Hi Marquinho. Here's the problem. Deletion review has only
two purposes: (i) Determine if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or (ii) is there new information not available in Wikipedia during the AfD that would justify undeleting the article. It is clear that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. In addition to the lack of sufficient
reliable source material to write an
attributable article, the behavior of those interested in the article make it clear that an
attributable article would not be produced even if there were sufficient
reliable source material to pass
WP:N (the
WP:XfD operative portion of WP:N reading "has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject"). So then we look to the second purpose. The following references were available for review during the AfD:
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]. In the future, you will need to come up with information not contained in these references that would justify undeleting the article. Had the spammy article been posted and deleted without any references listed in the article, you could have come to DRV and stated: Here are several new references that are "significant new information has come to light since a deletion." Unfortunately, you can't use any of these references in a future DRV request since they were already considered at the AfD. With the behavior of those interested in the article making it clear that an
attributable article will not be produced and no new information available for review at DRV, you literally are back at the starting line towards creating an article on Yuniti with nothing available with which to move forward. In other words, you are now in a worse position regarding a Yuniti article as compared to when the Yuniti material was first posted to Wikipedia. There really is not much anyone at DRV can do. Had you posted an article where each sentence was footnoted to one of the five references and not behaved the way you did, there likely would be a Yuniti article on Wikipedia today. Like everywhere, people on Wikipedia bend over backwards to help those who try. Please keep that in mind for your next article. --
Jreferee (
Talk) 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion wholly appropriate result based on our policies
WP:N and
WP:DELETE. As an aside, it will be the rare web site indeed that launched late last year that would be notable today - and Yuniti isn't there.
Carlossuarez46 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Delirious_logo.png&action=edit){kind=link}