Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X Factor Fansite

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 delete. I will userfy this if requested, but the author already has a version at User:Robtencer/The X Factor Fan Site. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor Fansite[edit]

The X Factor Fansite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fansite, does not seem to pass WP:WEB. I couldn't find any major media coverage of it. Also its only sources seem to be external links to the official website, facebook, youtube channel and twitter of The X Factor. Mauler90 talk 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has also been speedy deleted 3 previous times under a slightly different name in the last several days. Mauler90 talk 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That name is The X Factor Fan Site, and this is its log.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats right Jeff, the only reason those animals did not do a speedy delete on this page as well, is I believe they were sleeping, and temporarily left their computer deleting station.

I also have challenged that deletion as well, but there is nothing left to look at, as the animal admins completely removed the page. they were not as kind as you or Mauler90, and they for sure did not follow the rules of a valid contesting of removal. Instead of giving me 7 days, they gave me minutes, before ganging up on me and removing the article. It did not look like what it looks like now, nor will it look like it is today, later tomorrow. It is a work in progress, and is being updated daily. Thanks for pointing out all the facts, but you must agree, that some admins are ruthless, and not helpful to new contributors. unless the help they are giving is to get lost.

There is no listing of major media coverage, because the page is 1 day old, not the blog. Give us a chance to add something, before speedily removing.Robtencer (talk))

There are multiple types of deletion here, including speedy (which happened the first three times) and Articles for deletion full-fledged discussions (which this is one of) - please see WP:DELETE, which explains them.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have edited and removed what was bothering you: i.e. categories that lead nowhere, please remove your nomination, for delete (These are factual and verifiable sources dealing with the article topicRobtencer (talk))

Dear Mauler90 and other Admins with quick trigger fingers to destroy, and vandalize through nominating for removal, that which you did not create.Robtencer (talk)

There is no listing of major media coverage, because the page is 1 day old. Give us a chance to add something, before speedily removing.Robtencer (talk)

Also, Dear Mauler90, I have become very defensive, because unlike yourself, admins have made speedy delete tags on my work, without discussion. If you are willing to discuss the matter, I would be most appreciated. Perhaps you have not read the article, and don't understand the significance or importance of a FANSITE. Robtencer (talk)

If fans supply the content, and major media refuses to cover their story, and thexfactor.com fan site does give them coverage, does not that have merit for the little guy?Robtencer (talk)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. This is not surprising, given that the fansite is only one day old.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • while wikipedia defines very well what a fansite is, and fair use, the examples would be scarce, if left to admins who want to delete from existence, anything that is not corporate owned or developed. Instead of giving quotes of why you are against, why not contribute and help save an article? I am sure you helped save an article or two in your past. I am pleading for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtencer (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion, no credible indication of notability through notice in independent media, which is unsurprising if the site's a day old (which is not a valid reason to keep). Wikipedia is not a place to get noticed, it exists to document notability that already exists. "If major media refuses to cover the story", then it has no business being on Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:WEB. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I believe the author is referring to this article only being a day old. The article states that it has been established since 2001. Mauler90 talk 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has a lot of content rehashing material about the subject of the fansite, rather than concrete information on the fansite itself. Fails WP:INTERNET. Taroaldo (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much traffic does it get, and where can we verify that?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site was hacked and offline for some time, and lost hundreds of old posts, and many links on other media websites were removed due to the broken links. The rebuilding phase is going on. Traffic stats are available at alexa, which should give a rough estimate. --Robtencer (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Save"" per nom The article is still being worked on and was supposed to be in a mode, I thought I would receive editing help in its current place. Yes the website was established in 2001, and the article itself was 1 day old. I am compiling as many facts as possible relating to mentions, accomplishments, communications with major media, contributions, however I am trying to figure out how to reference my material, since some of the sources are located in emails. One example, not covered by the press, but effecting people whom watch music videos was the non stop demonstration against: wife beating, suicide, arson, and other anti-social behavior, which was seen in Leona Lewis's first album release video "Bleeding Love". (Leona Lewis was a winner on the x factor TV show) Due to the constant protest at thexfactor.com fansite, a new video was made, in compliance with the requests made in the fansite protest. The fan site had no formal apology from syco, fremantle or Leona Lewis's management or record label, although through protest (Protest was only being done via thexfactor.com) changes were made, and a new video released. If you look on youtube, you can find the old version and the new version with the changes from thexfactor.com fan site protest. At the time of the protest, The x factor fansite was receiving 20,000 unique visitors a day
""Save"" per nom WP:WEB Please take additional notice that thexfactor.com is a not for profit blog, and seeks no financial incentive. --Robtencer (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Save"" per nom WP:WEB The wikipedia page follows within the standards of WP:WEB and does not violate any conditions. The article is not an advertisement, and is not using wikipedia as a web directory. The article is also non duplicated content, made specific for the wikipedia page it exists. This is why it is taking time to edit. The article conforms to the criteria of WP:WEB, because notable high traffic sites like news of the world, amongst others have referenced articles as the source of the information being thexfactor.com fan site. The article has historical significance, since the fan site is constantly singled out by the BBC, and ITV for being the primary fan site for fans of the x factor. (emails stating this from BBC and ITV).--Robtencer (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion., We would not let them spam this ..so y a page???Moxy (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • dear MOXY and others who quickly add their negative votes. How about contributing and editing and actually helping a new editor, instead of ganging up against me and making me feel unwelcome? Please help me, instead of spitting on me.--Robtencer (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Listed "References" are just explanations of various sections on website instead of references showing notability of website. Long list of external links are about the The X Factor (UK) show instead of the website. I was one of the deleting admins and stand by my deletion as the article does not indicate the importance or significance of the website. Additionally, while this does not have any bearing on a deletion discussion, I think it should be noted that the article's primary author's user name shares the name of a staff person on website's parent company. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are now no references at all after the massive cleanup by AnemoneProjectors (not that anything removed was a real reference) and my removal of the USPTO link which appears to be an non-relevant reference. The article still fails WP:WEB. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per Gogo Dodo's comments above. Also article contains a great deal of WP:SOAP. NtheP (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did some cleaning up of the article, though I don't know why, since it clearly should be deleted. But it's just not notable. And I highly doubt that two videos were made for the "Bleeding Love" single because of protests on this fansite! AnemoneProjectors 12:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB and has a lot of content which is WP:SOAP Yousou (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteReasons stated above. Conay (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-notable website (A7) and spam (G7). There is no credible indication of notability and the article is overly promotional. The article claims the site has run from 2001 but, whilst the domain name was first registered on 1 July 2001, the internet archive (which is patchy for this site) shows it only started being used as an X Factor fansite sometime between February and September 2007 (there is no record beyond 2007 to determine whether it remained so). The article page claims it is "one of the highest trafficked fan sites on the internet today" but http://www.blogtopsites.com/sitedetails_3304.html (which the article links to) shows a only few tens of visits per day, and none at all before 19 July, which is when the Wikipedia articles promoting it started being created. Also recommend a block for the article creator for using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, personal attacks (eg [1], [2]) and canvassing. Note: this user also appears to edit as 69.235.196.187 and Pyknic56. I42 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator chose AfD instead of A7 or G11. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pyknic56.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped short of claiming sock puppetry; Pynknic56 stopped editing before Robtencer started and this appears to be nothing more than a WP:CLEANSTART. However, given that I referred to the the edit history of Robtenter, it is relevant to note the additional edit history that clearly exists. I42 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is insulting and takes personal attack against me. Before 2 weeks ago, I had never edited on wikipedia. For an editor to claim that I am committing wikipedia fraud (or whatever your terminology is) is vindictive, insulting and hurtful. I take great offense to this comment, and feel it calls for investigation into what the admin editor has done to destroy other editors interest in using wikipedia and contributing.--Robtencer (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article exists in at least two user spaces: User:Pyknic56/The X Factor Fan Site and your version at User:Robtencer/The X Factor Fan Site. They are essentially the same thing, because your version appears to be a copy of the one created by Pyknic56. IP 69.235.196.187 has edited both of these versions of the articles, which is odd, as have you. But if you are a newly arrived novice user: how did you even know it was there, and why are you editing pages in someone else's userspace? Whether you, Pyknic56 and the IP are the same person, or you are several people working on this together (the CU suggests the latter) there is clearly a link of some kind. And note also that Wikipedia takes a very dim view of using the site for promotion - but not only does the link to www.blogtopsites.com above show this is a site with very few visitors, it also shows that it is owned by a someone named tencerpr, which is telling. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your website - see WP:SOAP and WP:COI - but it will cover it when and it if becomes notable. I42 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A relevant site with good following. After reedits of articles, I believe good-enough grounds for keeping in this edited form werldwayd (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • after reading the kind comments from admins and editors of wikipedia, whom know what they are talking about. I agree with many of the comments, and ask that my article be moved to a soapbox, where editors besides myself, may be able to help me edit the article and make it worthy of a regular article that is not subject to speedy delete or even request for removal. Please notify me of the procedures for moving to soapbox or help me by moving it into soapbox. thanks.
  • as far as conflict of interest. This is a redundant and mean spirited comment with no thought. OF COURSE I AM AN ACTIVE FAN OF THE X FACTOR. Does being known as a fan, who submits comments and other fan related submissions to a FANSITE label someone CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Most people create articles because they have an interest in a subject or topic, does that mean everyone on wikipedia has a conflict of interest?--Robtencer (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • from my talk page: "It appears that you have some relationship to the parent company of the website. Therefore, please review the conflict of interest guideline and the Wikipedia Business' FAQ" --Robtencer (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I suspect that you mean to move the article to your user space, since there is no "soapbox" to move the article to. You already have a copy of the article in your user space, but the closing admin of this AfD will decide upon your request to userfy the article. As for your potential conflict of interest, the issue is not that you are a fan of the show, but that you appear to be employed by the company that owns the article subject's website. The article lists the owner of the website as Stun Media. The Stun Media website lists an employee named "Rob Tencer" as "Blog Relations Specialist". Your user name here is "Robtencer". Are you the same person or are the names just coincidental? If you are the same person, then you have a conflict of interest. If you are not the same person, then I apologize for claiming that you have a conflict of interest. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • editor Robtencer (ME) is an AMERICAN, and Stun Media is made up of people from the UK who know I am a fan of American Idol. They wrote to me and showed me a youtube video of the x factor, and I became a fan as well of the x factor. I am not an employee nor do I work for Stun Media. If an erroneous staff page was created with my name, it is a mistake. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have asked Stun Media to remove the erroneous page, mentioning my name, via email. I really appreciate all the work that wiki editor Jeff (smiley) has done to help me. He is like having an older brother, who looks out for my well being. Thank you Jeff (smiley)!!--Robtencer (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't work for them but obviously felt so strongly about them, your wrote a Wikipedia article on Stubmedia, what a hero! 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no other x factor fan site, that accepts no bias and takes no money from advertisers to take their opinions. I love that the fansite is unbiased, and enjoy being around others that share my hobby. We are fans of the x factor. writing about something you are interested in, I still feel does not make someone have a conflict of interest, otherwise everyone who writes or contributes to wikipedia about things they are interested in, would also give them a conflict of interest. I also DO NOT work for syco, fremantle, ITV or NBC. why is it so hard to understand that I am just a fan, who loves a fan site for the x factor???--Robtencer (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I originally thought, admins and editors don't only take aim at deleting articles, they also take it personally, and go after new editors.--Robtencer (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not had any time to update the article, because I seem to be spending all my time contacting the admins who recommended the deletion. I am also expressing my opinion here. While the second article I created was allowed to be discussed, the original editors/admins who speedily deleted my article did not allow for any discussion. The only editing it appears that others editors have done to my article, is to remove almost everything I wrote. How can a page survive this form of vandalism, while it is being reviewed for content? --Robtencer (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its best to move this to a user page for Robtencer to work on and prove notability if possible. He could read WP:notability and WP:reliable sources this may help in the direction he should take ...Moxy (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2010 (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/The_X_Factor_Fansite&oldid=1138862045"