Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Deli Online


 * 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. Luna Santin 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Digital Deli Online
"Digital deli online" gets about 750 ghits outside Wikipedia, of which under thirty are unique. Other things with the name Digital Deli exist and have far more presence on Google. Monograph of, who I believe is the site owner (has certainly added many links to the site). Alexa rank is over 1.8 million. No credible evidence of passing WP:WEB. Guy 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Show the evidence for your utterly false and intentionally misleading assertions. The Digital Deli Online will always be at something of a disadvantage because it promotes 'Golden Age Radio', as opposed to 'OTR', and because of it's stated pledge to avoid all link spam on it's site. The hits we get are from honest crawls, not link spam.  But your specious argument is typical of what I've seen on Wikipedia to date.  The very proscriptions they say they wish to enforce against link spam, are what the editors use to decide a page's ranking from Alexa.  The Digital Deli Online has never, nor will ever, promote the name 'The Digital Deli Online'.  The Golden Age of Radio is the name that it promotes--and always will.  Your claims are completely unsubstantiated and unsupported.  (As would be expected if the editor is relying upon finding the name 'The Digital Deli Online' to substantiate a presence on Alexa--which is without question the most heavily skewed search engine on the internet.)  This is primarily because they'll rank you higher if you pay for it, and they're tied to the DMOZ's limited category structure for their rankings.  A fairer comparison would be from Google, which is unquestionably far larger and more reliable than Alexa, uses a far more equitable ranking system, and ranks for content, not link spam hits.  Their technology is specifically engineered to catch, isolate and adjust for link spam.  Let's have full disclosure here, Guy.


 * Do a Google Search on Golden Age Radio and note The Digital Deli Online's ranking compared to the other 19 million to 23 million Golden Age Radio sites. If you're going to skew results to suit your argument, please make at least a pretense of acting in good faith.  The way Alexa participants get their hits is by offering the Alexa toolbar to their users or subscribers to gain more page hits.  Do another Google search on the site's actual URL in the Google Images Tab. And while you're at it, do a fair Alexa search, like this one.  I opted out of Alexa when I realized how co-opted it was.  But as you'll see, even though Alexa has intentionally misrepresented the time to connect to the site for over 3 years now, they still have to use Google for their crawls, and they're forced to list The Digital Deli Online, as consistently within the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites on the internet (even though I've specifically requested that Alexa and the DMOZ remove The Digital Deli Online from from the Old Time Radio category), and despite every effort on their part to hide the site. They've falsely claimed an 8 second connect time to The Digital Deli Online for over three years now.  Pull out a stop watch and time it yourself.  But since I don't pay them to stop lying about the site's performance, they continue to misrepresent it. Tell us, Guy.  Why did you intentionally overlook the fact that Alexa consistently lists the Digital Deli Online in the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites in the world?  Is it because withholding that fact didn't fit your argument, Guy? Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not 'credible' enough for you, Guy? Let's talk Yahoo, now. How about Yahoo?  Look for yourself.  And even MSN, which I won't have anything to do with on principle alone, shows this result.  Now if you wish to continue to intentionally misrepresent The Digital Deli Online's significance on any of the search engines, I respectfully suggest you go back to the drawing board before the next round of 'swift-boating' the candidate Article.  Unsubstantiated heresay only does Wikipedia a disservice. How about some full disclosure here, Guy?  How many pages did you have to scroll through to find The Digital Deli Online on any of these Golden Age Radio searches?  Three?  Five?  Ten?  How about none?  How about page one on every single one of them.  Kinda questions your premise, no? But hey, you're the expert, no? Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I gather from others of your observations that you're 'Mr. Alexa Expert', here on Wikipedia. Help us please understand, given your apparent Alexa expertise why you selectively excluded the most glaring fact regarding The Digital Deli Online's significance on Alexa. Given the preponderance of actual facts cited above, and your apparent extensive Alexa expertise, you'll forgive a casual reader's suspicion of why you'd intentionally fail to disclose Alexa placing The Digital Deli Online as the 4th most popular Old Time Radio site on the internet.  If it's your contention that Google, the single largest, most respected, and most referenced web presence in the history of technology is a somehow inferior to Alexa then go ahead and try to persuade anyone to believe that.  Just as an example of it's own absurdity, Alexa regularly ranks Google between 3 and 5 some days.  A teensy bit self-serving?  Huh?  I agree it's a darn shame that Alexa is so utterly co-opted and skewed but their management put them on the path they've chosen, not me. Do a little soul-searching, then come back when you're prepared to comment in good faith and with numbers you can substantiate, instead of a lot of hearsay or Alexa nonsense. If you wish to denigrate or diminish the significance or importance of an article or site, respect this forum enough to do your homework first next time. Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has hosted a recent smear campaign against The Digital Deli Online lead by two disgruntled editors from spamming sites, that refused to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, yet were permitted to launch a heinous smear campaign against the site, comparing it to Osama Bin Laden. You're an Alexa expert, no, Guy?  Help the more uninformed among us to understand how the apparently most hated site in Golden Age Radio is continually placed in the top five most popular Old Time Radio sites in the world.  Inquiring minds want to know.  I respect your apparent long standing expertise on such matters.  Help me, at least, understand this teensy weensy little discrepancy of logic. It truly is a an inconvenient little conundrum isn't it?  Care to help us understand the disconnect here?  You'd be doing all of us a great service if you could.  Please help?  Dnyhagen 09:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dnyhagen, please see this guideline for some reasons why you should not create articles on your own endeavours. It doesn't matter if you are one of the bigger fish in a very very small pond, the Alexa rank for your site remains at somewhere over the 1.8 million mark . I would suggest to you that you may not be the best person to assess the significance of your own website. As to golden age vs. OTR, I have no idea what you are talking abut and care even less.  WP:WEB is the applicable notability guideline, and we also strongly discourage essentially autobiographical content. The article itself is largely unverifiable from non-trivial neutral coverage reliable secondary sources anyway.  Your position in the search rankings speaks to your skills in promoting your site, not to the signifciance of the site. The significance fo the site is measured by references to it elsewhere.  The inbound link count  also fails to support assertions of significance.  Guy 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been asked and answered elsewhere, but it bears re-addressing. The SINGLE guideline objected to originally was proprietary authorship.  As the article was in the process of rehabiliation, suggestions for citations were both submitted, vetted, and approved.  The recommended guideline is that an article subject SHOULD not be submitted by it's owner or benefactor.  But the article is less about the Digital Deli Online than it is, about Golden Age Radio preservation.  Your self proclaimed ignorance of the subject matter speaks for itself, and if 23 million Golden Age Radio sites is a small pond, then you have your opinion and 23 million others have their own.  And if 23 million is smaller in significance than 1.8 million I really need to check my math.  Somehow that simply doesn't compute.  But, hey, if Alexa says their 1.8 million are more significant than Google's 23 million, I guess we'd have to believe that.  No? If you feel your opinion is more valuable than the 23 million others, so be it.  There's no argument to that logic.  That you didn't trouble yourself to verify Alexa's skewing of my daily results also speaks for itself.  I stated and cited my specific objections to Alexa's methods.  And I'd suggest to you, that since you not only admit, but seem proud of your abject ignorance of the subject matter, you're even less appropriate to assess it's worth.  I couldn't give one whit if I ever get a single hit from Wikipedia.  It's Golden Age Radio Preservation that the article focuses on.  And would have continued to focus on if continued to be developed.  Explain the insinuation that I've employed some sort of extraordinary skills that promote the site, rather than letting the site's articles and materials speak for itself, as you apparently didn't take note of, either.  Apparently your difficulty is with The Digital Deli Online as the title of the article, as compared to perhaps, Golden Age Radio Preservation Issues, or something of that nature.  I take no offense or exception either way.  But your snide fish and pond analogy is simply insulting--not to the site, but to Golden Age Radio Preservation and it's measly 23 million internet proponents world wide.  So let's recap here:  Higher number of Alexa ranking=better article candidate.  That's a new one on me.  I must have missed that amongst all the other guidelines on Wikipedia.  Too late to respond further.  I can see where this is heading in any case.  Oh, and thanks for all the constructive comments.  Very helpful.  Dnyhagen 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 23 million Golden Age Radio Sites? You mean the 18 million hits Google returns for a search on Golden Age Radio? But that's not how you should use Google. The results include all websites that contain all three words, in no particular order or relation to each other. So you get sites about a radio appearance of The Golden Age (a band), of the Danish State Radio Orchestra playing the Golden Age of Light Music. What you are looking for is either a search for "Golden Age Radio" (11000 Google Hits), or "Golden Age of Radio", 147,000 Google Hits. Now remember that these include (many) duplicate hits (hits to the same website or forum), so the actual number of sites that mention the term (favourably, unfavourably, in passing) is still much less. And consider this: no matter if there are thousands or millions of sites about the Golden Age of Radio, only 44 at the most link to your site. And as stated bemow: you are free to write an article on Golden Age Radio Preservation, but that is not what we are discussing here. Fram 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Intellectual Fraud and Good Faith. Here's what Alexa can or can't do for you if you either opt in to their system or opt out.  Intellectual fraud exists on Wikipedia as well.  My site was slower then, smaller then, and far more difficult to navigate then.  BUT I'd opted into the Alexa tryanny then, till I saw it for it was, and opted out. If you continue to use Alexa as your yardstick, you'll continue to commit intellectual fraud yourselves.  This isn't a matter of a level playing ground or not.  It's simple intellectual fraud.  Wanna know why I dropped off the face of Alexa?  I asked to be listed under Golden Age Radio and they refused to even consider the category. Y'all love numbers so much you're transfixed by them.  Even if the ones you're looking at are fraudulent. This isn't about being right or wrong.  I could be back in their skewed top 20,000 pages any time I choose to--by playing their game and committing intellectual fraud.  But I refuse to.  It's about intellectual honesty. Dnyhagen 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not use Alexa anywhere, so your answer is completely irrelevant. Fram 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I inaccurately cut and pasted the indentation. This was a response to the general argument regarding the integrity--or lack thereof--of Alexa's results.  The response should have been indented to the level of the Alexa discussion.  I apologize.  Dnyhagen 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Dnyhagen, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As for the article and its subject: on Google (which you seem to trust), "Digital Deli Online" gets only 43 distinct Google hits, and only 26 when you exclude Wikipedia articles and mirrors. The references you give in the article are overstated ("Golden Age Radio's international appeal is underscored by Queensland University of Technology's use of The Digital Deli Online as a reference for Golden Age of Radio Advertising," means that they use it once as a reference for a Coca Cola advert: they don't cite Digital Deli as "this is a good reference site" or so, and "and the Norwegian Historical Radio Society (NHRS) has long cited The Deli ,[13] as a source for Historic Radio Clubs" means that your site is included in a long list of links. "Family First has also consistently recommended The Digital Deli Online as a valuable educational source for Golden Age Radio enthusiasts": consistently recommended meaning that DigitalDeli is one of the thousands of sites they have reviewed favourably, and that that review is still online). Digital Deli Online is not notable enough and fails WP:WEB, and so I endore the nomination. Fram 10:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL, yes. Certainly something you'd do well to adhere to.  All of us for that matter.  Your opinions regarding the weight--or absence thereof--to two of the article's 17 citations thus far are noted. Please cite the actual count of the 'thousands' of Family First Articles on Golden Age Radio that you refer to, unsupported by fact.  Your endorsement of deletion is noted, though; for the most part unsupported as to the content of the article. I will repeat, yet again: searches for only 'The Digital Deli Online' are clearly slanted and biased, by design.  The site is not notable--nor sets out to be notable--for it's link backs to the name, 'The Digital Deli Online', or for that matter, popularity outside of the Golden Age Radio community.  It's notable only to the Golden Age Radio Enthusiast or Preservation Community, as are any number of the tens of thousands of other niche articles on Wikipedia--or frankly any encyclopedia of any kind.  Every article has and will have it's own proponents.  Clearly those seeking a specific article on Wikipedia won't give a whit about an article backed by 1.8 million other proponents--or the converse.  It's the subject matter of the article they'll search for more information.  It's that simple.  Golden Age Radio Preservation is addressed no where else on Wikipedia.  It is addressed quite comprehensively on The Digital Deli Online and the other 14 citations the article has assembled thus far; as apparently those measly 23 million other Golden Age Radio proponents--on the internet at least--seem to feel, anyway.  The Golden Age of Radio, and it's legacy are of great value and importance to that tiny--apparently insignificant to two of you thus far anyway--niche of 23 million proponents who would beg to differ with both of you.  Perhaps Wikipedia has outgrown the need to cater to 23 million proponents of The Golden Age Radio.  Pretty successful to be sure, to simply snub an interest group of that size.  But those 23 million can certainly continue to look elsewhere.  If Wikipedia refuses to permit such an article, they'll find what they're seeking about Golden Age Radio preservation elsewhere, anyway.  That's the long and short of it.  I've made my case, and begun the article with just such material. If the aim here is simply to naysay, snipe, or detract rather than be constructive, it's less a reflection on Golden Age Radio Preservation than on Wikipedia.  Far be it from me to either promote or detract from Alexa's inestimable value in assessing an article's worth on Wikipedia.  That remains for consensus to decide.  Suggestion for future Wikipedia Guidelines:  If Alexa's imprimatur in promoting--or detracting--from an article's worth is so key, why not add it as a guideline and be done with it?    I'll take my chances with the 23 million Golden Age Radio proponents any day.  But I do thank you for your highly constructive comments. Dnyhagen 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that I have not been civil to you, please point out where, as I don't see where I have done so. Otherwise, please don't retaliate a friendly reminder by accusing me of doing the same. If you want examples of where you have been uncivil and not assuming good faith on this page, I can start with your first line, "intentionally misleading assertions". Having said that: you yourself say that the site is not notable outside its community, but apparently the community of Golden Age of Radio has very few websites, as there are very few links to your website from inside the community either. This AfD is not about Golden Age of Radio, which is not up for deletion. Saying that "Wikipedia has outgrown the need to cater to 23 million proponents of the Golden Age Radio" is not supported by the facts, and I sincerely doubt those 23 million peope would all see an article on Digital Deli Online as necessary here. Golden Age Radio Preservation is adressed in the main Old-time radio article, and for all I care a separate, neutral article concerning the Preservation can be made. This, however, is an article about one website, not about that Preservation. If that was your intention, then the article is named completely wrong, and has too limited contents (it shouldn't be about your website). Finally, an answer to a few more specific remarks you make: Of your seventeen sources, I can't retrieve the third one, none of the first ten otherwise even mentions Digital Deli, just like the 16th and 17th; the 11th and 13th have the site in a list of links, the 12th uses your site as a aource for a quote about the Coca Cola formula, so all we are left with are the 14th and 15th reference. Two references, which both come out of the 40 or so Google found. As for the actual count of the 'thousands' of articles on Family First: obviously they are not about Golden Age Radio, they are about all kinds of stuff, they are to be more precise about websites suggested by readers of the website. I did not say or imply that they reviewed thousands of websites on Golden Age Radio, my actual quote was "consistently recommended meaning that DigitalDeli is one of the thousands of sites they have reviewed favourably," and if I counted correctly, there are 3583 sites reviewed. This is all highly irrelevant to the main issue though, that your website is not notable enough for inclusion here, but I thought it would be better if your other remarks were answered as well. Fram 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. In a sense I had expected this article to be here sooner and when I first saw it felt that it did deserve deletion review however other editors were involved in it. I have reflected for a while on this before voting as I have been involved on the edges of some related discussion.  However, with reflection, I feel that this is the correct vote.  I do not see the article as being truly notable and I believe there is at least an element of vanity here.  The author has been & is extremely protective of his article and his position - in a sense I understand this but it is my belief that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia --Nigel  (Talk) 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oh please, NigelR. Expected, but not instigated?  Let me help this along.  Delete it.  Please.  Contrary to your assertion, Fram, there is almost nothing of value in the existing 'Old Time Radio' Article as regards the preservation of Golden Age Radio.  Nor, given the underlying forces and parties at work on it, will there likely ever be, since people that feel as I do about it, tend to resent the imprimatur of 'Old Time Radio' or even worse, 'OTR', onto Golden Age Radio Preservation issues.  Heck, I can't even get my own site removed from the Old Time Radio category on Alexa, despite three years of repeated attempts. Sadly, those two factions appear to be at cross purposes with each other--the one faction wanting to continue to profit from it, and the other wishing to promote an urgent message to preserve even more of it.  Even worse, it's an unwitting antibiosis; the preservation faction passionately racing against time, to churn out even more preserved recordings, and the commercial OTR faction even more passionately downsampling all of them so as to pack more of them onto a CD for sale for 3 bucks a pop. Indeed, the early decision to lump Golden Age Radio into 'OTR' was apparently made by the same commercial factions of 'OTR' sites with an eye to future exploitation of the articles and the tentacles of Program articles stemming from it--a literal orgy of self-promotion, commercial podcasting, and link backs.  A real treasure trove indeed. And apparently little of it, policed or enforced till a naeive newcomer upset the apple cart.  That's regrettable, but not entirely surprising in the least.  I'll get an article on Golden Age Radio Preservation into Wikipedia in time, one way or the other. I certainly don't need to do it on the back of The Digital Deli Online, and god knows I'll never subject the site again to such naked abuse, insinuations, and unsupported attacks.  The 'vanity' aspects of the article were admittedly regrettable, but the initial insistence of the editors to first comment on it, was directed principally toward supporting the website's notability, not the notability of the Golden Age Radio Preservation effort that serves as its only raison de etre.  Nor was it indicated anywhere, by anyone prior to that, that the measure of a site's notability stems, as a prerequisite, from it's Alexa ranking.  If that's truly the case, from what I've seen thus far on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of similar internet site-related articles that will certainly never rise to that measurement, as well as conversely, hundreds of potentially valuable internet site articles, encyclopedic in nature, that will never grace the pages of Wikipedia.  More's the pity.  Frankly, I find that an absurdly narrow prerequisite for notability, if not a disservice to the ultimate goals of Wikipedia in it's effort to become the world's most accessible online encylcopedia.  To my perhaps naieve way of thinking, notability stems from an entity's uniqueness of content, promotion of a noble effort, encyclopedic information value to a noteworthy niche or broader interests, or perhaps even to purpose alone.  In retrospect I regret misintrepreting the means by which editors were seeking notability from the website, versus the message.  I honestly do, but the positive comments I was receiving along the way from other Wikipedia editors left me with the mistaken impression that I was pointing the article in the right direction.  I'm nothing if not passionate about this effort, and I fear that passion served more to detract from the message, than contribute to it.  All in all, a regrettable, misdirected first outcome.  Do what y'all need to with the article.  The process of learning the ropes, coding, citing, structure, guidelines, and politics of Wikipedia can only serve to help my next such effort.  Lots of lessons learned--some outrageously negative, some very positive.  Lest Guy conclude from this any self-serving perception of further justification for his unwarranted insinuations that I either undertook an arbitrary wholesale deletion of spam links, or, since he apparently wants it both ways, that I failed to delete as many as his proudly self-avowed ignorance of the subject led him to believe I should have deleted, I'll reiterate yet again, and for the final time; every single spam link I did--or didn't--remove was based on an informed rationale, from long-standing experience and knowledge of the subject matter.  No more, certainly no less, and unequivocally without prejudice, pro or con.  Never at anytime did I permit my own passions sway my own deliberation processes.  Not once. That dog doesn't hunt. Put it out of its misery.  Though I doubt this will cease Guy's continued insinuations, I for one am finished rising to the bait.  Period. Dnyhagen 23:15, 25 September 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.