Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dapreview

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh_(talk) 05:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dapreview[edit]

This article has been continually re-posted by the author who believes his blog is notable. Would appear not to meet WP:WEB, and is advertising/spam for the guy's site. Harr o5 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN and "If the sites that I modeled my site after have pages, then by God, I must have one, too!" as indicated from the article itself: "Engadget and Gizmodo, both similar sites, also have pages on wikipedia. I built the Dapreview page based on the engadget and gizmogo article. Before deleting the DAPreview page again, please do the same to Gizmodo and Engadget. Or how about helping me out instead of deleting this article again." --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect. Feezo (Talk) 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect nn .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability, possibly speedy G4, but I'm not an admin. --Allen 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect I actually liked the site and had it in my bookmarks from when I was shopping for a DAP. I find it useful; but unencyclopedic --Mmx1 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn Encise 04:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and protect --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the aticle is not encyclopaedic. Also has user comments in atricle. --Soumyasch 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect due to recreation by the author despite many deletions, definitely nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, remains NN. Also, protect, because it's not likely to be notable any time soon, and this guy is clearly just going to remake the page. Oliver Keenan 10:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delte Wow, that's kind of you guys ... So can someone explain to me why Engadget gets one and we don't? And it can't be considered as spam seeing that no-one will find it if they are not looking for DAPreview at all. The article is informational and has no "oh, Dapreview rocks!" in it. And I won't re-create the page if you delete it again, but the first two times there was no reason given and it just seemed like someone was being extremely trigger happy. What does protect mean? And at what time is a site considered "important enough" to get a wiki entry? When they are under the top 10000, 1000 or 500 sites? Exity 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for web site notability is here. If you feel that, under the listed criteria, you have a case for notability then please feel free to make it here. You will not help your case by asking why Engadget gets an article; that's an entirely separate question which has no bearing on the notability of your site. If you want to convince editors in this discussion that your site is notable then you should read the guidelines and make a case based on those guidelines here. --Craig Stuntz 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Engadget gets one because it's in the top 1000 most visited websites according to Alexa. The article was started by common users of the website, not by the creators of the website. Usually a Wikipedia article is considered "important enough" if enough editors with no personal connections to the subject come together and decide to start an article about it. Frankly, it's not enough to have just the creator of a website say that their own website is important. Also, "protect" means that after an administrator deletes this article they can make it so that the article cannot be recreated by anyone other than another administrator. The reason this has been nominated to be protected is because it's been deleted multiple times before. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete DAPreview is a very informative news site with the resources of hundreds of people with vast experience with DAPs. This article is not an advertisement at all, it's merely a history of the site. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.224.192.52 (talk • contribs) .
Delete Currently non-notable website. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search came up with some verifiable evidence of coverage in other media see [1]. As such, they may well meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those mentions are on other blogs like engadget and less notable versions. --Mmx1 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really G4 material as it's not, as far as I can tell, been AfD's before, only speedied - but it is without doubt the most blatant vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blogs that get blogged about are not necessarily notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ delete per CSD General criteria #7 and protect, as this seems to be recreation of twice-deleted DAPreview (see its deletion log -- even if it is all of two entries at this time), so I think this will just keep getting recreated if we merely delete it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant speedy delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and if it is not a speedy, then it will be correct for me to say strong delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Another possible case for Wikipedia:EsperanzaRLY~~. Tag removed, no significant attack in the end. Deizio 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but is the obnoxious {{AfdAnons}} tag really necessary? I don't see any ballotbox stuffing here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw the above vote from 71.224.192.52 (talk · contribs), which was the anon's only contribution. I thought I might be pre-empting a campaign. If you want, you can remove the tag. Harr o5 08:34, 23 March 2006 (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.