Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuckpaypal.net

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 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuckpaypal.net

Fuckpaypal.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I beleive Article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions as very little has changed since T-rex gave initial deletion warning on date of article creation. It has been suggested by JoshuaZ to have an open debate before deletion.

I see Many reason for Fuckpaypal.net's deletion. They include:

• Fuckpaypal.net is an attack page which serves no other purpose but to disparage the subject WP:CSD#G10
• Article appears to have created exclusively promote the Fuckpaypal.net site WP:CSD#G11
• Fuckpaypal.net is an article about web content WP:CSD#A7
• "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda or advertising" WP:NOT#SOAPBOX
• "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred" WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND

Hu12 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see have a strong opinion on this but it isn't an attack page since it doesn't attack the webpage in question (and attack page would be a page that attacked Fuckpappal.net). Also, the website has been covered in reliable sources including a magazine and so may meet WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB clearly states;

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (emphasis mine)

The mention in this hacker magazine, the article in which is not actually given in the link (that I could find) doesnt constitute multiple; even if we include the "trivial" link from a slashdot post. Also, Alexa.com rank (I know I hate them too) is over 1 million... delete  Glen  21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G11. Further, it makes no assertion of notability. A small court claim is not notable. Neither is any generic scam on paypal, nor is entry in 2600, a VERY niche magazine notability. 2600 publishes dozens of small articles similar to this one yearly, none of which are otherwise notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If you want to stick to WP:WEB to a T, you need multiple Non-trivial sources, which means even if 2600 is notable (which I think it is, go look at the subscriber base size) it is still only one non-trivial source. It was linked to on slashdot in a post not dedicated to it. Thus it only has 1 non-trivial source. I'm assuming wikipedia policies which refer to multiple sources mean more than one. Since it doesn't have MULTIPLE non-trivial sources it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Too bad since I would've preferred to keep it otherwise. --Quirex 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ok, I'm convinced by Quirex especially since I'm unable to find another source. JoshuaZ 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Web page about single NN small-claims case, one about a kajillion filed in the USA every day. Judge Judy does cases that are larger and more notable than this. Tubezone 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Only a regular delete; WP:NOT is not reason to speedy-delete, it has likely claims of fame (2600 article, lawsuit, etc) and it's not an attack page (The subject may be as annoying as imaginable, as long as the article is not abusive). I don't think this qualifies as G11 blatant ad either. I think this thing should be kind of chainsaw-trimmed and put to Criticisms of PayPal or something. Probably not famous enough for an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable enough, as it has only one source. The page also spends much too much time on the site creator's personal story with PayPal, which is not exactly encyclopedia-worthy and suggests that the page was created mainly to air criticisms of Paypal. Heimstern Läufer 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I think this article should stay. For one, there is an article in 2600 Magazine about this guy and his problem. However, since it is a paper publication, there is no way to site it other than the link provided. Also, referring to your reasons for deleting: 1) It is not an attack page. It is not attacking fuckpaypal.net. 2) It doesn't seem this way to me. It seems to be your point of view that this is a promotion of the site. I see this article as a warning to people that use paypal. I believe there was a link to the site in the PayPal wikipedia article in the criticism section, but was removed when the section was cleaned. I don't see this as a promotion of the site or a personal grudge. I see it as a documentation of the 'fuckpaypal' movement. Maybe a name change from 'fuckpaypal.net' to 'fuckpaypal' would satisfy you.68.193.81.111 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment How about merging or renaming this into an article Criticisms of PayPal. I would note that buyers and sellers routinely have beefs with PayPal, Ebay, Mastercard, Visa, Amex, etc, and buyer and seller fraud is a big problem. Ebay even has a "Dispute Console", indicating that they expect disputes. The only thing notable about this dispute is that he put up the fuckpaypal.net website. Large companies deal with larger disputes and buyer fraud regularly, spammers and phishers scam the public for millions. A $600 gyp is not notable, unless it happens to me, in which case you will see a WP page on it. Tubezone 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete an issue of a few hundred bucks is not a very big deal, I'm sure PayPal deals with that sort of thing all the time. If it can be sourced, though, it would probably make a good addition to a "criticism of PayPal" section. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 6 December 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.