Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Rich

Add links
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 keep. Neıl ☄ 10:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Rich[edit]

I Am Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

At best, this should be in App Store. At worst, it should be deleted on the basis that it's no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run. It's received it's five minutes of fame and in a year, no one's going to care. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: If it were the first app or the first scam "art" (e.g. Cookie Monster (virus)), there might be a case, but this is filed under "who'd a thunk it" news. Wikipedia is not News of the Weird or Fark. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: very well covered by both technology and conventional press: [1] --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : User:Anthony_cargile voted Keep in the article talk page: [2] --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me move that over here. ViperSnake151 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, or at the very worst merge it with the app store article. This is an ongoing issue, and future developments may cause the article to be merged with criticisms of apple, because of apple's deletion of the app which violated no rules of the app store, and for not paying Heinrick. If you don't keep the article, at least merge it somewhere, because this IS something a lot of websites have reported on, making it high-profile news amongst nerds and developers like myself, and since the app is now a rarity, its future worth (granted its authenticity can be proven via embedded assembly metadata or whatnot) may be enough as so to keep this article around.

Like I said, this is an ongoing issue currently, and deleting it before a major development could be unnecessary work for everyone.

In short: I vote to keep it, or at least compromise and merge it with an appropriate article. Anthony cargile (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it at least for now. I would like to see an expansion to this article that reports whether this app was advertised properly so that buyers would know what they were getting into. If it was advertised properly, then perhaps we should create a new article called "fluffware" (I am coining that word), into which this article can be merged. I can see more of this type of costly and relatively useless software being sold by developers taking their cue from this app. Of course, if it was not advertised properly, i.e., the buyer expected to get a lot more than they really got, then this is plain fraud and should then perhaps be deleted on the basis of being just a period news piece. --Jstreutker (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I forgot to add that this article was very useful to me. Somebody told me the story about it today, but didn't indicate it was a recent event. So I went to Wikipedia and typed in the phrase "I am Rich" and immediately got the information I was interested in. --Jstreutker (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're proposing WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL be violated? Well, here's another proposal - your vote should be ignored per WP:JUSTAVOTE Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has enough third-party citations in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if most people forget about it next year or not. --Itub (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do a Google search for Barry Bonds 714th home run. 47,800 hits on websites like espn.go.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, cbsnews.com, sfgate.com, etc. Plenty of third party reliable sources. But it got deleted all the same because of WP:NEWS and WP:IINFO. Third party citations, alone, are insufficient if they are of a transitory nature. And yes - despite your claims to the contrary, it does, per the policies I have just cited, "matter if most people forget about it next year or not". But I suppose the "Itup is always right" policy trumps even those? Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for Barry Bonds because I don't give a damn about baseball, but I suppose that a merge was reasonable in that case. However, I do care for internet phenomena and I think this is a notable one and that merging it into the article about the store where it was sold is not a good solution. Note that I said that it doesn't matter if most people forget about it. I'm sure not everyone will forget about it. Why do you have to link essentially twice to the same policy? "Not news" is just a bullet point of "IINFO". --Itub (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "Not news" is just a bullet point of "IINFO" is like saying that even linking to "IINFO" is just a bullet point of WP:N. Also, check out Iraq War. The "Contractors dead" section of the information box has three citations. How is my citing two articles on wikipedia policy any different than that article providing three citations?
That said, I do detect a hint of WP:RECENTISM on your part, and maybe even some WP:ILIKEIT Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that you were linking to the same section of the policy page twice, perhaps pretending that they are different to make it look like there are "twice as many policies" behind your argument. But that's just a guess. WP:N is a completely different page, so it has nothing to do with my point. I also see you also like linking to essays... I think you should know that the strength of an argument is not proportional to the number of links to WP: pages it contains. But anyway, I'll bite. Yes, this is recent news. Perhaps in some cases it can be too much, but recentism in general is not wrong in my opinion when it leads to new articles; it is only wrong when it leads to unbalanced articles on topics with non-recent histories. As an analogy, devoting half of the article on China to the Olympic games would be an example of "bad recentism", while having more articles on the athletes participating in the 2008 olympics than in the 1900 olympics is "good recentism" that results from the easier accessibility of information about the recent athletes. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. As for WP:AADD, it has some useful advice in parts, but it is also a great collection of strawman examples that are very often misapplied. This is going to be my last reply here. I'll just a kind suggestion: you don't need to fight with every "voter" who disagrees with your nomination. Just let everyone speak, and then the consensus will emerge in the end. Trust me, I won't mind if the consensus doesn't go my way and the article is deleted. I have other things to worry about. --Itub (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Meh. The Barry Bonds' 714th home run analogy doesn't quite work because that article very neatly merges into existing articles. This one relates to a number of other topics (The App Store, online scams, iPhone, Apple, etc.) without falling completely within them. It's about the right length (maybe a touch too long). - Richfife (talk) 23:58, 2 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Am_Rich&oldid=1069814340"