Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Revolution.com

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J-Revolution.com

Advertising. This entry was created by a user obviously affiliated with the subject. 66.216.68.28 15:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it was, but we are making it a factual encyclopedia artical, give us a few minutes. Jrev

Even if it weren't advertising, then it is still not notable or encyclopedic. --66.216.68.28 16:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's why I said to wait, we are in the process of writing a page for it. Jrev

The subject isn't going to become any more notable in a few minutes. But whatever, let wikipedia decide who is right. --66.216.68.28 16:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising a non-notable website. --KFP 16:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with it. It's not a bias article, and never actually offers a link to the site in question. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 17:16, 18 July 2005 — (100%MoreAwesomeThanYou's 3rd edit.)
• Keep. Honestly, what is wrong with the page? It's a big site, and we ARE explaining what the site is about, and how it started... --JRev 17:25, 18 July 2005
  • When you started this page, you should have seen this text: Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • EXACTLY why we AREN'T promoting it. We are giving a detailed listing of how the site came about, what the site is about... not promoting it.
      • The act of merely creating the article could be seen as promotion, but let's leave that aside for the moment: "J-Revolution.com is a great source for information", "While you are there, you can learn many things", "Pulling in staffers from all over the world, J-Revolution aspires for the top", "the staff and admin have made a name for themselves on the internet for being there for the users" is all promotional language that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV, and also Wikipedia:Importance. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Keyword: "promote." The article in question never says something like "...so go visit (Webpage name here) today! It gives a brief overview of what the site contains, and some minor background information. If, for example, Burger King only told you what their products contained, and gave a brief background of it, in an ad, I don't think they would gain many sales from that ad. A more solid argument would be that it is irrelevant or non-notable. If the act of creating that page is advertising, than the Google page needs a load of work. The Google page includes a link to their search, even though it is posted as Google Inc. Seems like a silly way to cover an ad. The article in question could use some minor editing to be appropriate, but that is not a reason to exterminate it entirely. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 17:54, 18 July 2005
          • If POV were the only issue here, then yes, some minor editing would be fine for this article. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
            • That would be why I said that a more solid argument would be that it is irrelevant or non-notable. I stand by my opinion that it is notable enough to be kept. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 18:20, 18 July 2005

Yes, and if you notice, we say that we ASPIRE for the top, that you CAN learn many things, that we WANT to be the best, we never say we are. We are not being biased.

• Lack of importance is the main issue here, not bias. The site does not seem to be notable enough to merit an article at Wikipedia, at least not yet. --KFP 18:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Notability is definitely the main issue here. I was merely pointing out problems with the promotional language in the article, which is a side issue. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Therefore you would be biased against the site. Saying that YOU think it isn't notable enough. To some people it is.

• Delete. You assume that others are "biased" against something they've only just heard of. That's not the case. This is (a) a non-notable website and (b) self-promotion. It's not an encyclopedia article.

Except from amazon.com entry: Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) is an American electronic commerce company based in Seattle, Washington. It was one of the first major companies to sell goods over the Internet. Amazon also owns Alexa Internet, a9.com, and the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).

Amazon assigns a unique identifier, the Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN), to each item it sells. (For books, the ASIN is the same as the item's ISBN, if it has one.) Amazon offers access to its catalog via web services, much as Google does to its search engine. In addition, a9.com provides search engine services directly on the Amazon.com site.

Launched in 1995, Amazon.com began as an online book-selling company but has now branched off into many other areas, including DVDs, music CDs, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, and more.

This is quite similitar to the j-revolution definition. Look back at it. J-Revolution is a major site in the anime world that is growing more known each day. When people see J-Rev or J-Revolution, they're either curious or already know what it means. Having the definition here shows inquisitive minds what the site is about.

• Delete. Not notable. Shanes 19:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to User:Jrev. There are a few hundred google hits for the site, once after sorting out some extemporaneous material. The site has an Alexa rank of 209,094, which is a little under the usual bar set for including purely web-based material. --Icelight 19:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • No redirects from article space to user space, please. See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --KFP 20:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, meant to type Merge, as that user is the company. Got distracted while typing. Icelight 22:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Merge implies a redirect. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. That Alexa rank is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below what would normally be considered notable. -Splash 20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The user admitted that the site had only been operating since April 2005, with around 300 members to date. Give it a year or so to see whether the site becomes as popular/notable as it ASPIREs to become. Regardless, the article needs to be edited to follow an encyclopedic format; right now some sections read like a company mission statement.--Madchester 21:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that this is a notable website. Sorry. CDC (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. Dcarrano 23:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deletio vanitosis. --FOo 03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website (Alexa ranking 209,094). Also the site appears to be down at the moment. --Stormie 03:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 07:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising (as shown by promotional rhetoric) and vanity at the same time, since the contributor practically admits that he is promoting his site. Not to mention that WP is NOT web directory. I hope he is not recruiting for sock- or meatpuppets. Skysmith 08:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that 69.172.214.39 (talk • contribs), who has been involved with this VFD, blanked it. He may try again - Skysmith 09:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move it to the user page until notability is established. Bart133 (t) 16:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to draw a comparison between a well-known company (like Amazon) with a recently-created site. Even if the article were perfect, it's still not notable yet. --Titoxd 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Binadot 03:25, 21 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.