Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigoster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedied this once, but it got recreated. Just some non-notable website that makes no assertion of encyclopedic notability, does not pass WP:WEB or WP:N, and gets 9 Ghits. Moreschi Talk 10:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable website. The domain has been registered since 2003 but I haven't been able to find a whole lot of sources. On top of that, the website only appears to have ~5200 registered users at this point which would explain the lack of RS. -- Seed 2.0 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Website has been registered since 2003 but as invite only. Just recently finished alpha development and opened up to open registration which explains the low user count, lack of web notability and wiki hits. Notability has been mostly hard print from the Whittier Daily News and La Opinion. It did get deleted before but that was my fault since i wasn't quite sure how to format the wiki page to comply with given standards. After reviewing similar wiki's from various websites that follow the same content deployment platform of amigoster, I revised the wiki accordingly. Djbetoski Talk 1:25pm, 13 May 2007 (PST)
- Delete, even page's creator admits above the site's "low user count, [and] lack of web notability". That's the problem with the site, and no amount of bold or italic or pretty web page screenshots you throw into the article will change that. Resurgent insurgent 20:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still non-notable, despite recreation; removed from List of social networking websites for that reason. Ref (chew)(do) 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After the reading "Notability guidelines" there are a few key things that dispute the claim for deletion by the editor responses to this article.
Notability is not subjective. Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. WP:N
Also, another case for keeping this article is "Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." WP:N The site usage has gone up 300% in the past month so its "attracting notice". Its safe to assume within time, web articles reviewing, praising, or recommending increase usage of the site will be available. This is why its stated on the article for users to contribute to it. Djbetoski Talk 3:25pm, 13 May 2007 (PST)
- Comment - however much you throw guidelines around, this site is patently non-notable, as it was in its previous incarnation. For the creator to vote twice was inadvisable (I converted the second vote to a comment), but to defend the article this vociferously is abuse of Conflict of Interest (look it up yourself, as I don't intend to throw guidelines about myself). Ref (chew)(do) 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the article is not there to be used to increase the notability of the site, as you seem to think - that's an invalid function and an abuse of Wikipedia. Ref (chew)(do) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - however much you throw guidelines around, this site is patently non-notable, as it was in its previous incarnation. For the creator to vote twice was inadvisable (I converted the second vote to a comment), but to defend the article this vociferously is abuse of Conflict of Interest (look it up yourself, as I don't intend to throw guidelines about myself). Ref (chew)(do) 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's not throw the guideline around, instead let's examine its misuse. Notability is not subjective because an objective standard is defined. It is, in short, coverage in independent, reliable sources. This has none.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.