Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouSendIt
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 and clean up. —Doug Bell talk 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YouSendIt[edit]
I tagged this as spam a month ago, it's barely changed since (one word and the addition of a spam link for an unofficial yousendit forum). A month is long enough, this needs to be rewritten to demonstrate notability and remove spam or it needs to be deleted. Prefereably the latter, since it's had more than its money's worth out of Wikipedia Guy (Help!) 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but source. Alexa rank is 364. It's no Megaupload or RapidShare but it's no also-ran either. YSI has been covered in the tech press, partly because it's based in the US (and I think it was founded by web veterans, which should be in the article). --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:RS, or WP:WEB. Where are the multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources? Where are the articles that focus just on reporting on this site? Sorry but burden of proof is not on the AFD, or any editors voting here. if there are tech articles, then lets have them sourced. If the tech articles report on a trend and include other websites, then they are not acceptable per WP:RS. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep 3 million users and high Alexa rank. AFD is not cleanup. — brighterorange (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It was profiled on TechCrunch yesterday. According to that article, YouSendIt has three million users, which sounds pretty notable to me. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per above source. Not Alexa rank or number of users. -Amarkov blahedits 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wrathchild. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per brighterorange & Wrathchild. It's clearly notable, and "needs work" isn't a reason for deletion. Quack 688 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not sure of the rationale here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- YouDespamIt, YouCleanItUp, and YouKeepIt - subject more than worthy of a Wikipedia article, but the article needs to be rewritten almost from scratch by a third party editor. If there is no rewrite soon, we'll most likely be revisiting this once again... and that's not necessary. B.Wind 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the commenters above, appears to be notable. Yamaguchi先生 02:34, 15 December 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.