Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appletalker


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Appletalker
Hugely biased, purely for self promotion, orphan article Hejog 00:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Considering by past AFD's standards, forum websites have always been deleted. --Ageo020 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "If article X then article Y." argument is fallacious, for obvious reasons. Please look to see whether the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied by this forum. Uncle G 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but modify wording to make it impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWire (talk • contribs)
 * Delete This is a couple month old forum that is not currently notable. Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise a new forum. Once it becomes notable an article can be created around it. DrunkenSmurf 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  per DrunkenSmurf American Patriot 1776 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  non notable per Drunkensmurf Crossmr 03:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It could use some modification to be made impartial, but there is no good reason for it to be totally removed IMHO. Nv2u 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence provided that subject meets WP:WEB. -- Kinu t /c  04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a short description of an existing forum. It is not made up, fake, or harassing. Not one single reason has been presented why this article shouldn't exist.
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB, non-notable forum. --Ter e nce Ong (T 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Self Promotion, Not notable. OwlBoy 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the three pillars of Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Those are three valid reasons this article should not exist. Fails to cite independent third-party reliable non-trival sources. Does not follow the WP:WEB guideline. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The vote for deletion was obviously started for personal reasons. If the page needs improvement, please be so kind and contribute. It's a shame Wikipedia is being misused for a vendetta between immature individuals. 129.129.128.84 08:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please base your rationale for keeping or deleting upon our policies and guidelines. Uncle G 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Though it is small, it is an active and notable site if at least for it's stance on democratic principles and is not defamatory to any other forum. I am willing to help edit it to make it more NPOV. I would also like to note that I suspect the initiator of the deletion request is acting dishonestly, because he perceives AppleTalker as a threat and feels he needs to take "revenge" for the addition I made to the MacNN article mentioning AppleTalker, which is factual in nature.--Tuxley 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Assume good faith. Also please demonstrate how the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Our criteria for inclusion are not based upon what stances web sites take. Wikipedia does not support stances. Our criteria for inclusion are based upon the existence of non-trivial published works and various other things. Uncle G 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. We are not saying it is not factual. We're saying that it is not notable yet (or if it is, that there's no reliable third party sources to back it up). It breaks basic Wikipedia policy. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that that I included the AppleTalker info and link on the MacNN article in order to introduce valid links to the AppleTalker article. Also, though there have only been a few editors, many members of AppleTalker contributed to the article before it was created on Wikipedia, so if you see a few new heads here, understand that its not a disingenuous attempt at "tipping the balance" of opinion, but rather the genuine opinion of other people who have contributed to the article before-hand. As for noteworthy-ness and "non-trivial published works", AppleTalker has a few thousand posts, some of which are rather substantial, from technical issues to philosophy. I just wonder what kind of standard can judge MacNN to be "noteworthy" and yet have no place for AppleTalker. Also, AppleTalker differentiates itself from most forums on its policies, lack of moderators and system of governance. I think that is substantial, because it makes it rather unique.--Tuxley 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for noteworthy-ness and "non-trivial published works", AppleTalker has a few thousand posts &mdash; The posts on the discussion forum itself are not non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the discussion forum. I just wonder what kind of standard can judge MacNN to be "noteworthy" and yet have no place for AppleTalker. &mdash; What makes you think that Macintosh News Network satisfies the WP:WEB criteria either?  That article cites no non-trivial published works sourced independently of the subject, either.  In fact, it cites no sources at all. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, please stop using fallacious arguments such as "If article X then article Y." and please cite sources to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.  If you cite such sources, you may well change editors' minds.  If you simply continue with the fallacious arguments, you certainly won't.  Please cite sources. Uncle G 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you want to be really stubborn about this, go ahead. The moment this page gets deleted, MacNN's page will be put up for deletion as well. How about we stick to one set of rules rather than just bully the small guys? 129.129.128.84 09:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We are sticking to one set of rules. They've been linked to several times in this discussion, and you've been told how you can make an argument that this discussion forum satisfies the criteria. Uncle G 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're being a hypocrite. You come and here and lecture about Wikipedia policies, but you fail to put up the MacNN page for deletion even though it obviously violates the same rules you quote here. Until I see you apply these rules to the MacNN entry, I will assume you are just here to troll and insult. 129.129.128.84 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB.  SWAdair 09:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, exactly what sources pertaining to what do you want cited? AppleTalker is a board. Everything leading to its creation and all that has gone on within it have been recorded and stored. Also, AppleTalker is on Apple's site as a widget. There you go, a source. No "fallacious" or "phallic" arguments here.--Tuxley 09:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some examples: Histories of this discussion forum, created and published independently of the discussion forum itself; non-trivial news coverage in a reliable source; independent guides to the discussion forum. If you can find and cite such things, you can change the minds of the editors whose rationales are that the WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied.  That web page that you hyperlinked is not a source.  It says nothing at all about the discussion forum. Uncle G 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe AppleTalker is notable in itself. Just some browsing around the board will verify that this is indeed a different kind of board. Also, I cannot provide many links because AppleTalker is a young board. However it has been mentioned on numerous other sites and blogs. Here is an example of AppleTalker being referenced for a technical article. Also, it is listed on Woz.com (of Apple's co-founder) under "Cool Mac Sites".--Tuxley 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is not subjective. A review of the board by Wozniak would count, and you're looking along the right lines now; but that simple list of bookmarks, which merely says "Mac Discussion Group", is not it.  Wikipedia is not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  We need more than "mostly harmless". Uncle G 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article might be taken as a simple advertisement for the site it references, and that is damning enough in and of itself. However, the entire article is basically written as a series of statements that reduce to "we are not like our rivals" and "our rivals are evil." The result is that it feels more like an attack on the rival than a genuine advertisement. Attack articles, last I checked, were not kosher here. MillenniumX 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V - I can't find any reliable, third party sources. The article cites no reliable, third party sources. WilyD 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough info provided to pass WP:V, WP:WEB -- Whpq 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whilst people obviously feel this board has a great deal of potential, at the current time is certainly does not meet WP:WEB Orchid Righteous 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cite Sources or Delete. Please cite information from independent sources, especially media reports. If it is in fact the primary forum spinoff of macnn, it probably had a mention in one of the various Apple-related magazines. The article is written in the tone of an advertisement. Please Rewrite, if kept.  Cdcon   15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  WPWEB Betacommand 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Because an anon was complaining about the MacNN article, I reviewed it and found it also lacked sources and verfication. It has been also given an AfD spot Articles for deletion/Macintosh News Network-- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per DrunkenSmurf. I don't believe that V is very relevant here; by and large most website histories aren't recorded. WP:WEB is the greater factor; NPOV and OR should be grounds for cleanup, not for deletion. And on WP:WEB see DS' comment above. --Firi e n § 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry Firien, but WP:V applies to ALL articles. That is not negotiable, and can not be ignored because of editor concensus. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but failing WP:V is the best reason to delete an article - If we only deleted articles that failed WP:V and/or WP:SPAM, we'd still kill all the articles that need to be killed WilyD 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should rephrase. Verifying the history of pages is generally difficult to verify (perhaps crawling through archive.org, etc, but admittedly that tast would be vast and horrible for a forum) because the history is generally also not something that is widely published. OTOH, that leads to the agreeable point that the history of a website is simple not useful or suitable for WP; if there is something newsworthy, then it will have been recorded elsewhere. However just because the history of the site fails V I don't believe the article is up for deletion; V simply states that the information there that isn't verifiable needs to be removed. Sure, for many pages V covers the whole thing; but here if you strip the unverifiable bits you're still left over with information such as the existence of the site, what it's for. Those then fail WP:WEB; I think the distinction between a blanket V delete and combination of V/WEB is an important one; V should strip down the information, and what's left over is what should be judged for deletion. Compare the existence of some unV information in some random otherwise great article; the article should not fall because one part of it is outside our rules. Here a far greater section is unV - but it's still a section. Does that make more sense? --Firi e n § 09:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we strip the page of the content that fails WP:V, then it's blank, which is a criterion for speedy, I believe. WP:WEB is just a guideline, we can ignore it, WP:V is a policy we cannot ignore. WP:WEB is essentially just a polite way of saying ''Axe articles that fail WP:SPAM, WP:OR and/or WP:V - I think it's preferable to skip the middle man, and stick to how it violates policy. WilyD 11:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per failing WP:V. As stated above, this is not negotiable. GBYork 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ageo020 and WP:V. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete How is this not spam? --Xrblsnggt 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads like an advertisement for the forum and nothing else. TJ Spyke 02:43, 23 August 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.