Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia

Zorpia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The Zorpia article was deleted due to lack of verifiable sources to assert its notability. Here are some sources that proved the notability of Zorpia:

1. USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-02-29-photoshare_x.htm
2. TechAddress: http://techaddress.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/interview-with-jeffrey-ng-ceo-from-zorpia/
3. DMasia: http://www.digitalmediaasia.com/default.asp?ArticleID=19073 (Canada's largest independent record label would not work with a fake drug site!)
4. Pulse 2: http://pulse2.com/category/nettwerk-music-group/ (Note quotes from Nettwerk Records Marketing Director)

manchun so —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.238.170 (talk • contribs). Note: This nomination was subsequently attributed to Iamlucifer who had made a malformed nomination earlier. It is not clear that this actually was the same editor. Rossami (talk)

• Endorse closure but relist. Closure was proper for the discussion, but the new information warrants a second look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A closer look at the USA Today piece makes me retract this for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Statistics like membership of a site has to come from the primary source, the website itself. According to their press release on Mar 12, 2006. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb356555.htm they had 1.8 million users. Here's a link to the recorded interview that came with the press release http://prwebpodcast.com/releases/pod356555.htm On Nov 1, 2006, they claimed that they had 3.7 million users http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2646108504196548190&q=zorpia Today, they claim that they have 5,272,575 members according to the stats on their front page and they are growing by more than ten thousand per day. manchun so 212.35.238.170 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• zorpia.com was added to the black list for spamming wikipedia. And the spam on wikipedia was actually referring to this very article (Zorpia) that was deleted. AfD's talk page ([[1]]) quotes Google search results that start from index 700! Even Wikipedia itself appears to be linked to 'online drug sales' using this method! Why not mention the 100's of other links including news stories, articles, links to major record labels that DONT mention online drug sales. This seems to be a very 'selective' form of proof I'm afraid.--Menjo 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We deal with this for books by a policy of linking to the ISBN, not Amazon, etc. Is there any way we can add the article so it cannot be used in this fashion? Can it stay on the blacklist and still have an article? I do not know what's feasible here. DGG 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "quotes Google search results that start from index 700!" -- Please do not cite my comments out of context. For each Google search, I included a link to the first 100 results and to the last 100 results. See for yourself.[2] --A. B. ^(talk) 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks for pointing that out. Can you tell us why you performed and reported searches such as "Zorpia.com + Phentermine", but none for say "Zorpia.com + Social Networking", or "Zorpia.com + Photo Sharing Networking". It seems like research designed to prove a negative point, rather than be un-biased. It is like me saying this:
      I tried to find out if A.B was a good researcher, so I searched Google and was puzzled by the results. I saw a lot of references to different drugs, so I tried revising my search. Here is my result:
      wikipedia + A.B + Phentermine: 109,000 Results [[3]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Menjo (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).— Menjo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse deletion per listing on the Spam Blacklist which makes creating the page difficult (if not impossible), and once again, lack of independent sources. I haven't looked at the rest. USA Today has no real mention of it, Tech is an interview (Primary), the last two appear to be cropped from press releases or something. None of them really indicate its notability. And we can't remove it from the spam blacklist because of the user created pages that were advertised all over Wikipedia which caused us problems. There are solutions, but they're kind of lack luster. I'd support making this a precedent for other social networking sites, though. (IE: Avoid all these accusations of unfairness). Right now, the article is protected, and it was almost impossible to edit due to the blacklist, which made the article stagnate (and reduce in quality). I say the AFD standsm still. Logical2u_{Review me!} 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure of the Zorpia article on grounds of WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM violations. The AfD was closed with a proper Delete. The Zorpia.com domain is currently blacklisted and it's request for whitelisting was denied here. It also should be noted that the following WP:SPA sock's are trying to sway consensus Special:Contributions/Menjo, Special:Contributions/Iamlucifer, Special:Contributions/212.35.238.170, Special:Contributions/91.109.181.51. In fact several of those socks have spammed the closing admin and the users that commented on the AfD. (Requestion 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
  • "In fact several of those socks have spammed the closing admin and the users that commented on the AfD." - that's an interesting use of the word 'spammed' - I think you meant to say "In fact several of those socks have REPLIED TO the closing admin and the users that commented on the AfD." - why shouldn't these people make comments on the decision made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.26.83 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse I agree that the sources are insufficient, although I am not familiar with the blacklist. The only new reference to Zorpia I could find myself is a news article that includes the sentence "The man initiated contact with the girl through her Zorpia social networking web page when she was 11." and goes downhill from there. That's… not going to work for so many reasons. Melchoir 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • –if you have found a reference to Zorpia in a news article, regardless of the content, isn't it already a valid, verifiable source? VChang 219.78.223.174 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but it's not enough. Even if we had an article on Zorpia, I don't think it would be appropriate to cite that source. Melchoir 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thats interesting Melchoir, YOU just cited it as a source to endorse deletion!--210.84.26.83 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • My whole point is that it's the only thing I found. Melchoir 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Really? What search method did you use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.100.171 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
            • Google News. Melchoir 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
              • You based your research on ONE web search? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.100.171 (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
                • Yes, and that's already one more than I should have done. The burden of proof isn't on me; I was simply curious. Melchoir 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • OK, I just wanted to establish for everyone reading the 'extent' of your research to support your endorsement for deletion. I guess we are clear now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.100.171 (talk • contribs).
• I am a member of zorpia. I have been using zorpia for 2 years. I do not understand why zorpia.com is on wikipedia's black list at the first place. There is no log or history about how zorpia.com is being added to the blacklist. There was one and only one mention of zorpia in wikipedia, and that was the zorpia entry in question right now. Now you are saying the entry is impossible to be reinstated because of the blacklist; and that zorpia was blacklisted because someone claimed that this entry is a spam. Does that make sense at all? How can we request removal zorpia from the blacklist, and why was zorpia blocked at the first place?
  USA Today clearly mentioned the site under the category of "PHOTO SHARING WEB SITES".
  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Reliable_sources, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." As TechAddress is easily accessible, it is a valid verifiable source even if its primary. The blog itself is a professional self-published source, which makes it even more valid.
  Moreover, Zorpia is in many social networking website lists, like Online Personals Watch: http://onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/2006/03/ultimate_list_o.html "Online Personals Watch" is a professional self-published source also, therefore it should be regarded as a verifiable secondary source.
  Not having a membership count on so called verifiable sources does not mean zorpia is not a notable service. All the other sources are sufficient to prove that it is a genuine social networking website. VChang 219.78.223.174 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)— 219.78.223.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: the anonymous user signed with both the regular signature and the VChang signature. There is no user:VChang on Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Online Personals Watch: http://onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/2006/08/zorpia_plans_to.html 219.78.223.174 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, perfectly proper close and no significant new information. No, passing mentions in news stories are not evidence of notability, we need multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the website and its creators. Otherwise (a) we become a directory of websites, which is something Wikipedia is not, and (b) we can't verify the neutrality of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, wikipedia is not a directory of websites, However, contributers often create articles about genres of web sites, that is a reflection the technological age we live in. Within such articles, they may want to legitimately cite examples or stats on such sites. Zorpia is notable within such a genre, it has been in existence since 2003, it has 5 million worldwide members, it has shown tremendous growth in the last few years. Lets say for example this Wikipedia entry [[4]], Zorpia could be included as an example of a site which successfully used this method. It is one of the few Social Networking Sites which is entirely self sufficient in this way (no external funding investment). If you created a wikipedia entry for 'Cars' is it not legitimate to reference Ford, and BMW, as well as lesser known manufacturers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.100.171 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
• These new sources are all from different times, ranging from 2006 to 2007. They are NOT passing comment and they have at least one paragraph covering zorpia.
  1. Alex Bosworth: An independent blogger working as a product manager at SourceLabs in Seattle WA wrote a blog about zorpia's growth: User:alex: http://swik.net/User:alex/Alex+Bosworth+-+The+Races/Social+Networks%2C+they%27re+so+hot+right+now/dyuq (22 May 2006)
  2. Mark Brooks wrote a blog to compare Zorpia and other famous social networking sites. He "formerly worked with Friendster, FriendFinder, Cupid and TRUE and is available for comment on the internet dating and social networking industry":
  3. Online Personals Watch: http://onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/2006/08/zorpia_plans_to.html (10 Aug 2006)
  4. DCIA reported Zorpia's partnership with Nettwerk, Canada’s leading privately owned record label and artist management company. The DCIA is a voluntary, consensus organization with representation from all substantially affected sectors of the nascent distributed computing industry. DCIA: http://www.dcia.info/News/newsletter_2006-10-23.htm#Nettwerk (23 Oct 2006)
  5. Masternewmedia is an independent news source by Robin Good, he reviewed Zorpia: Masternewmedia: http://www.masternewmedia.org/photo-sharing/new-photo-sharing-tools/20070128-best-photo-sharing-tools.htm (28 Jan 2007)
  6. Blogcritics is an online magazine, a community of writers and readers from around the globe. They used a paragraph to report the beta music site from Zorpia, and Zorpia's exclusive content from Nettwerk's The Submarines http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/20/150732.php (20 Oct 2006)

  219.78.223.174

• At this point in the discussion, anon user:219.78.223.174 seeded the discussion with five instances of the unsigned comment "Now check the 5 new sources?" The subsequent discussion were sub-bullets of one instance. There were no responses to the other instances. Rossami (talk)
  • Please see WP:SPS. Melchoir 16:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What about WP:SPS? The 5 new sources are not questionable or self-published. For example Blogcritics should not be questionable, because it has its wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlogCritics 219.78.223.174 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • They are. Blogcritics is not only a blog, our article describes it as "democratic". Having a Wikipedia article does not make it a reliable source; even Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Melchoir 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well then why is Blogcritics on Wikipedia? All their references are also from blogs, press releases, their own site, and directories. We have already listed similarly powerful sources above. We even have more sources than them. Blogcritics is not the only one that's like zorpia's entry, there are millions of them. May be some of the admins think its OK to start with zorpia. But do you understand if zorpia is deleted and blacklisted AT THE SAME TIME, no one will ever be able to mention anything about it in wikipedia again? The very chance to add more sources to make it accurate is also killed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.223.174 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
          • I just checked the afD for Blogcritics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogcritics, they are kept because of their alexa ranking of 8000. Zorpia is currently ranking at 922! (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=zorpia.com&url=zorpia.com) Is the ranking helpful for wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.223.174 (talk • contribs).
            • I have a link for that too: WP:WAX. Melchoir 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
              • great! Thanks for pointing that out. then is http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=zorpia.com&url=zorpia.com a source? 219.78.223.174 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• At this point in the discussion, anon user:219.78.223.174 created a subsection titled "Testimonials from Zorpia users". The subsequent comments have been moved back to reestablish the chronology of the discussion. Rossami (talk)
  • I'm writing to you about your Deleting of Zorpia.com from this site Zorpia works endlessly to keep perverts,predators,spammehttp://www.example.com link titlers, from its site users actively report them to a place on Zorpia called the ZORPIA REPORTING CENTRE There are aso a number of active user groups to fight this problem too ] also im you need further evidence that Zorpia acts on this problem I will quote you some reference case numbers from cases from online reporting site [5] and [6] VGT please contact Katy MILNE and quote this case reported 27 June 2006 at 11:43:50 CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007 CEOP child Expolitation and Online Protection Centre/ Ref NO CEOP-2006-31 case study Kelly Murray im sure if you contacted these sites and also Public-OCSET-OMC@afp.gov.au tis is the direct line to report internet predators to the Australian Feds and contact Agent Darryl Hamilton will confirm that in 2006 were working with Zorpia.com on 2 cases Zorpia.com reported to them These are legitimate law Agencies im sure this this can give you some sufficient Evidence to go on not only does this show that zorpia.com is fighting online predators actively it also shows that Zorpia.com is against online crime Drugs Spamming and Perverts. It would be a very unwise move if Zorpia was doing what you claim them to be doing while aslo working on this problem in addition to this it would be better to work with zorpia.com on this matter then it would to just disregard them as nothing BIGTONY TAIWAN ZORPIA MEMBER 27 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigtony79 (talk • contribs).
  • Zorpia is a great site where you can chat n have fun n laughter with people. Also it is a site where you can get a lot of help from people. They is somethings I can say when I went on other chat sites I didnt know how to set things up on there n when I ask how to do things no one ans me. On Zorpia if I get stuck in anything like how to set the background or have any problems in topics or have problems sending messages or topics the Zorpia team sorts out the problem right away. ALISON 38 Lancaster England —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigtony79 (talk • contribs).
  • Zorpia is one the most visited sites i enter most of all in internet.I have mentioned too in one Zorpia is the best site. I come for my friends on here and participate when i can.Wikipedia has certainly done a big mistake about the issue of being blacklisted. Be good if you open your eyes up clearly here Adminstration do their job here and not to be focusing on just Zorpia thank you. MADAMBOO 41 NEW ZEALAND —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigtony79 (talk • contribs).
• The most recent rank of Zorpia on Alexa is 922. Shouldn't the ranking be notable enough? Alexa Internet, Inc. is a California-based subsidiary company of Amazon.com that is best known for operating a website (www.alexa.com) that provides information on the web traffic to other websites. Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=zorpia.com&url=zorpia.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.223.174 (talk • contribs).
  • At this point in the discussion, anon user:219.78.223.174 updated the several unsigned instances of "Now check the 5 new sources?" to "Now check the 6 new sources?" Rossami (talk)
• Endorse deletion per Requestion. Blogs aren't reliable sources, and the amount of SPA activity on this DRV is astounding. The close was valid. --Coredesat 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks highly suspicious when every time an opinion or evidence given contrary to the decision is deemed as SPA by the editors. Why will none of the editors address the issue of the highly false and mis-leading information CURRENTLY being perpetuated by wikipedia about this obviously genuine site. Why will they also not comment on the highly suspicious methods used by wikpedia editors, who have deemed Zorpia a site 'related to drugs'? Is this reply also spam?--Menjo 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Masternewmedia and DCIA are not blogs. They are websites from independent organizations. Why are they not considered as reliable sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.223.174 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion per Request and Coredesat. JoshuaZ 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well then why is Blogcritics on Wikipedia? All their references are also from blogs, press releases, their own site, and directories. We have already listed similarly powerful sources above. We even have more sources than them. Blogcritics is not the only one that's like zorpia's entry, there are millions of them. May be some of the admins think its OK to start with zorpia. But do you realize if zorpia is deleted and blacklisted AT THE SAME TIME, no one will ever be able to mention anything about it in wikipedia again? The very chance to add more sources to make it accurate is also killed!
    I just checked the afD for Blogcritics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogcritics, they are kept because of their alexa ranking of 8000. Zorpia is currently ranking at 922! (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=zorpia.com&url=zorpia.com) Is the ranking a helpful source for wikipedia? I know its the reason that saved Blogcritics from being deleted! 219.78.223.174 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Just because one thing was kept in an AFD does not mean everything else like it should also be kept. Also, Blogcritics is not on the spam blacklist. --Coredesat 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The question is, WHY is Zorpia on the spam blacklist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Menjo (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Because people used their Zorpia sites to spam ads all over Wikipedia. Logical2u_{Review me!} 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
          • 'Zorpia Sites'? There is only one Zorpia site.--Menjo 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This explains a lot: http://www..com/group/zorpia_wikipedia_petition Melchoir 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup! Yet another source that you will claim as invalid. Even if its complete with pictures and text and hundreds of people signing the petition.219.78.223.174 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't a source. That's the reason why this discussion has been derailed again and again. You can't advertise these sorts of things on external fora - it's essentially canvassing. This DRV may need to be restarted. --Coredesat 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, surprisingly, when you call a site with over 5 million members 'not notable', and when that site has an alexa ranking of around 1000, AND your editors perpetuate a untruth through manipulated data, claiming that site is related to selling pharmaceuticals, then the members of that site get kind of annoyed.--Menjo 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Advertising yourself like Melchoir mentioned actually hurts your case; people tend to discount legitimate votes for keeping, because they get lost in the crowd of reason-less keep votes. And I agree with the nom; the 'mentions' are all either trivial, primary, or basically press releases. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Including Alexa?--Menjo 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Alexa has never been considered a reliable source for anything because it's easily manipulated (through Google bombing, for instance). It's only used as a rule of thumb - being ranked highly on Alexa is not an indicator of notability. --Coredesat 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK. So we shouldn't (for example) consider traffic rankings quoted in the wikipedia article 'wikipedia', to be accurate, because the supporting reference (Alexa), isnt a reliable source? (I know this is WP:WAX, I'm not using it to support Zorpia, I'm enquiring as to 'Alexa has never been considered a reliable source')--Menjo 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Alexa can be a negative source (that is, a low ranking is circumstantial evidence of a lack of notability) but not a reliable positive source. Rossami (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Lacking in secondary sources. Wickethewok 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• ZORPIA DELETED FOR LACK OF "NOTABILITY"?
  90% of what I read in Wikipidia is hardly what I'd call "notable". I can't even believe I'm having to write this now. There are scads of popular Social Networking websites. Do only MySpace and Friendster "count"? This deletion sounds suspect and ego-driven. It makes no sense. Zorpia is as "notable" as any number of similar sites (e.g. hi5, Bolt. Buzznet, Faceparty, Multiply.com, TagWorld, LiveJournal, Vox, Yahoo! 360° and so on... I've been a Wikipedian for a year or so (two maybe?) - I can't recall exactly how long. Check my stats if you'd like. How do I join the "We're Wikipedians and you're not 'notable' committee"? I think it needs a bit of stirring up to say the least. Seriously, "not notable"? Shouldn't we delete the 90% of other Wikipedia articles with topics that are also not "notable"? Take this as a NO VOTE. The article should be reinstated. This is nuts. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is defined in the various guidelines, in this case WP:WEB. --Coredesat 04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Surely there's lots of "notability" related to Zorpia amongst the 100K+ web pages shown here making some sort of reference to Zorpia.
      This anal-retentive reading of the "notability" policy is over the top. The fact is, Zorpia is a Social Networking site with millions of members. You CANNOT dispute that. That in and of itself makes it notable, period. It's got millions of members - not dozens, hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands, it's millions.
      I just did a Google search on "Zorpia.com" while excluding any hits that were on the zorpia.com domain itself. Google reported nearly 125,000 pages. That's "notable" don't you think?
      And would somebody explain this "spam" stuff? Zorpia is a social networking website. It's not a person or advertiser filling your mailbox, Usenet Newsgroup, or favorite Web Forum with Spam. Seriously, this is nuts. I too been a ""Zorpian" for a number of months now, and when I learned that the Zorpia article had been deleted, I was flat-out astounded.
      The excuses for deleting the article are lame and seriously unjustifiable. Besides, despite what Jimbo would like, Wikipiedia is no Encyclopedia Brittanica. Just ask Stephen Colbert......
      BTW, who zaps all of our "Wikiality" anyway? I find it all over Wikipedia -constantly, but I don't have that much free time to fix it...(believe it or not). --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 05:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • *sighs* Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground, and you are expected to be civil in your arguments. Please read WP:ATT and WP:ATA (the latter of which you have pretty much used up completely). --Coredesat 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Pardon me, sir. I was just trying to get my point across. Might you suggest how I have would accomplished this without it resulting in your objections to my style and method?
          Thank you.
          How might WP:ATT apply to my arguments?
          Thanks again.
          Please re-read WP:ATA. It is not a Policy or Guideline. It is simply an "essay".
          Thanks
          --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 12:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You are Wikilawyering. The purpose of many essays in Wikipedia, in particular the one you just linked, are to explain practical applications of various guidelines. That essay helps explain parts of the Deletion policy, and how it is applied. Claiming that you can ignore a page that has achieved widespread consensus because "its not a policy" is not going to help your case either. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I never stated I can ignore a page. But perhaps some policy change is in order? Regardless, what do you suggest I do at this point? This is simply nuts. I've never heard of 2/3 of the sites on the List of social networking websites page. To say most (if not all of them) on that page aren't "notable" is nonsense based on the "policy" under which the Zorpia article was deleted. The Zorpia page should have never been deleted, period.
              It's a crying shame that this much work has to be put forth to (attempt to) get an article reinstated. :-\ --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't see how its that hard. All you need is to show that there are enough reliable sources about Zorpia which can be used to write an article. So far I've seen some links to passing mentions (meaningless) and a few blogs and the like. If its so notable, why is it seemingly so hard for you to find a reliable source? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                • "Reliable source" is a very subjective term. What I find reliable, you may not. And what you may find reliable I may not (e.g. If you were to consider Fox News "reliable"). The problem here is the flawed Wikipedia policy, which is under very active discussion as we "speak"...... --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • "Reliable source" is a term defined by a strict Wikipedia policy, WP:ATT. The policy isn't under discussion; what is under discussion is how the various policies such as WP:RS and WP:V can be merged into WP:ATT in an effective manner. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, all that can be verified seems to be "Zorpia is a social networking site", which might be enough for inclusion in the List of social networking websites, but there are no sources for a proper article here. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Since there is no longer an article to read, I can't see what was wrong with the original. But take a look at the links that have been posted above. They do the job as far as I'm concerned. What's wrong with them? --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• The Zorpia Problem: A Proposed Solution
  Given the length of this discussion so far, I would like to suggest a solution for consideration.
  However, my solution is based on one main consideration which is as follows:
  Originally, Wikipedia editors were not even sure that Zorpia was a real Social Networking Site, and wondered if it was a cover for some more sinister operation. One major thing has changed since then - editors have experienced 'Zorpians' (Zorpia members). This is important - an academic can search for years to prove the existence of 'music', but a three year old child KNOWS it exists because he hears it, feels it, and dances to it. If the editors are not sure that Zorpians even exist, then they can visit the site itself, and see the 1000's of people discussing this topic. As evidence that these users are not just multiple 'fake' accounts, they can even see photographic proof being made by real people holding signs with references to this topic. Put simply, if you are still looking for proof that Zorpia IS a social networking site, then you are missing that which is right under your nose!
  IF editors can at least agree that Zorpia is a Social Networking Site, then I suggest the following:
  1. That they allow the Zorpia article to be re-instated, BUT as a very brief entry with no 'fluff'. It may go along the lines of something very simple like "Zorpia is a social networking site established in 2003." - I know this absurdly brief, but its a starting point. Its also a way of addressing the 'notable' issue. Editors know that Zorpia IS a social networking site, they are not convinced of its notability - so only allow a brief entry.
  2. Subsequent to reinstatement, the the article MAY be expanded, but only according the strictest Wikipedia guidelines pertaining verifiable and legitimate information. I would suggest that perhaps one editor could be assigned to keep an eye on it, to make sure there are no breaches (I'm sure the other editors have other pressing tasks to do).
  3. Given that Zorpia has, over the last few months, taken many actions to reduce the ability for third parties to use its site for spam, that the zorpia.com entry in the spam blacklist be removed and allowed a trial at least. Zorpia, does not want Wikipedia to be filled with spam, especially from it's own accounts. I would suggest that if occasions occur where wikipedia is spammed, that the particular URL used should be blacklisted, rather than the whole domain. IF a situation should occur where wikipedia does experience mass spamming, then I do believe that the Zorpia technical staff would be more than willing to participate in a final solution.

  WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? AFTER ALL WIKIPEDIA ISNT A WEB DIRECTORY!
  I believe the value of wikipedia, is the fact that it is 'alive', unlike some dusty old encyclopedia that was already out of date by the time it went to press. When 'Google' is added to the Oxford dictionary, the media reports the event - but when a contemporary addition is made to Wikipedia, nobody blinks - because thats what it is, relevant NOW.
  Therefore it follows that Wikipedia is bound to have articles about all kinds of internet trends. As one of the biggest trends of recent years, it is hardly surprising that social networking is included - it has major significance in our current internet age. Naturally, articles would want to reference sites included in that genre. In the case of Zorpia, they couldn't (because of the blacklist). If Google bought Zorpia tomorrow, it could not be mentioned. If there was an article about internet predetors, Zorpia could not be mentioned. If all 5 million members attempted to jump up and down at the same time in an attempt to shift the worlds axis - the attempt could not be mentioned on Wikipedia.--Menjo 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC) — Menjo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • "Originally, Wikipedia editors were not even sure that Zorpia was a real Social Networking Site, and wondered if it was a cover for some more sinister operation."
    This is a joke, right? You can't be serious --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. I see no justification of such a "brief" article. Zorpia deserves the same Wikipedia coverage as Freiendster, MySpace or Buzznet. It's a popular social networking site, period. Join it and find out. I just don't get this.
    2. I'm a Zorpia member. What would you like to know? What needs to be "verified". Jeffry Ng, Zorpia's answer to MySpace's Tom Anderson created the site in 2003 as has been covered in at least one article I came across a while ago (in a blog (*Oh my!*) covering such sites.
    3. I don't get this spam stuff. Seriously. MySpace is covered with Spam. So what?

    What's with this "blacklist"? I don't know how to put this without being offensive, but it seems we've got a number of Wikipedia editors who are excelling in the ignorance department.
    I agree Wikipedia is not a web directory, that's all the more reason that a "stub" (or anything less than that) is not justified in place of a Zorpia article. What was there before was probably fine (I never saw it). If not, a few "fixes" would probably be more than sufficient.
    --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    • I happen to agree, but I think in any 'heated' dispute it's good to find an agreeable starting point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Menjo (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
      • This comment was originally interwoven between sub-comments 1 and 2 above. Moved to restore the attribution of Angrykeyboarder's comments.
• Endorse Deletion until multiple, non-trivial reliable sources can be found. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. AfD was properly closed. This is not a repeat of it. If you think you have multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, write an article in userspace and submit that to DRV. Sandstein 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. None of the evidence presented here convinces me that the site has achieved significantly greater notability since the closure of the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure there are no faults at the AfD nor with its closure. DRV is not AfD take 2. Unless there are significant things that would assert notability (e.g. an article in a major newspaper, etc.) which have been missed in the original AfD there are no grounds to overturn. CharonX/talk 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is insane. Seriously. I just don't get this. Doesn't anybody see flaws in this "notability" stuff? Am I the only one who thinks that policy needs to be changed? Do you think that everyone can agrree on what defines "notable"? I doubt it. In the case of Zorpia, Hundreds of thousands of references to the site seems notable to me. What am I missing here? There is no question as to the size of the significance and size of the site. Can newspapers be expected to cover every single popular site on the Internet? As stated previously, this all seems just a tad anal-retentive don't you think? angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 14:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - the AfD has been closed properly (clear consensus for deletion) and no real new information has come to light, so I see no reason to overturn. Jayden54 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure and Deletion. Valid AfD closure based on policy and consensus. No new information that subject now meets Wikipedia:Notability#The primary notability criterion, which clearly states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Eventually, after some major news source covers this company and/or website, an editor should create a properly sourced article in userspace and submit that to DRV per Sandstein. -- Satori Son 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the original closing decision since properly closed. Comment - While notability may mean importance or fame, "Wikipedia notability" means sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Its confusing, but there presently are discussions trying to clear up this confusion. Also, not just any source material may be used. The source material needs to be Wikipedia reilable source material. In any event, there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about Zorpia, which is what the consensus at AfD brought out. -- Jreferee 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure--if a noted inclusionist like badlydrawnjeff finds the new evidence unconvincing, then I'm convinced. This is not AfD round two, and the AfD was concluded properly, and there seems to be little else to say. Xtifr _tälk 09:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure His comment on the USA article apparently is based--at rightly so-- on the fact that they include it on a sidebar but do not include any mention of it in the article. The mediasia article is significant, and says "will be releasing" -- If they ever do become notable, then an article should be reconsidered. DGG 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)