Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlbumFreak

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. GlassCobra 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlbumFreak[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. "We hope to become a known provider... " Sorry, boys, come back when you have become a known provider, Wikipedia isn't here to help you become known. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bringing this to deletion so quickly after it was created (according to the revision history, three minutes) seems to be a case of demolishing the house while it's still being built, however it is written the first person and is likely a COI advertisment for an unknown website looking to use Wikipedia to boost their traffic. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that it is generally not right to AfD an article minutes after its creation, but I AfDed this after good faith google searching. This article never meets WEB notability, so AfD is the only way. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't creating this page to try to boost traffic, we're creating it to become a more established source. The page is being edited more and more to reflect what we're doing, and hope we can keep it alive. The biography was written by another staff member in the first person for the myspace, and has since been edited to not be, along with the rest of the article.Hxck (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that you're involved with the website makes its creation a conflict of interest which is not allowed on Wikipedia (and don't think of asking someone else to recreate it, that's still COI) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Business' FAQ. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Delete it, simple as that. It's not a big deal. And thanks a lot for your so-called "humor." Didn't I say we weren't using it to become popular? We can do that on our own. We were using it to be a more solid and trustworthy source than some site that just pops up out of nowhere. And John, I'm 20 years old, don't call me a boy again. Hxck (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he was not using it in a derogatory manner. It's just that Wikipedia has guidelines for things such as notability, verification, conflicts of interest, The use of Wikipedia as your personal webspace and notability for websites among many others. I'm sure the creation of this page was indeed in good faith and is not meant to be negative or positive toward the content of your actual website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TrekFanatic (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright On with it then. Hxck (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AfD's can last as long as 7 days (and as short as a few minutes). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like others, I have a longstanding concern about instant AfDs, but this is pretty cut-and-dried. A great many outfits and individuals believe that Wikipedia articles will help put them on the map, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Ravenswing 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immediately The page redirects to pay per click boilerplate. Zredsox (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RG's an idiot and is kicking a dead horse, as I explained a couple times that that wasn't the reasoning. Apparently the staff here knows the rules, but doesn't know how to read. And zredsox is incorrect, since something is wrong with the hosting (that I have no control over.) The mods before him can vouch that that wasn't the case before. 72.227.69.101 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The address a day later still directs to money making scheme of some sort (ppc biolerplate.) Hosting problems are not in the purview of Wikipedia, and I can only comment based on what comes up when I go to the world wide web address in question.Zredsox (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man I guess I never really knew how serious people were when they said that the Wiki staff was inadequate. 72.227.69.101 (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, the joke was on them, or possibly you - the wiki "staff" is made up of any volunteer who wants to be a part, one of whom is currently... uhm... you. tomasz. 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (having not been covered in reliable 3rd party sources). COI itself is not a reason for deletion but, it does cause problems and that why it is discouraged. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck wiki :) how about that lol let put it on a fake better wiki, always a good idea they wont bitch that we put it on our selfs. or ill wait for someone else to put it on. the site is down because of a domain or our host is having problems beyond our controle, tbh we dont need wiki its fulla shit anyways lol. END — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albumfreak (talk • contribs)

lololol we're probably going to get banned for this. Hey, John wants to call us boys...let's act like boys. :] Hxck (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2008 (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.