Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frappr


 * 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, stubify, cleanup to remove "advert-ishness", and reference. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Frappr

 * — (View AfD)

Previouslyspeedily deleted at Frappr!, this re-creation still makes no assertion of notability and offers no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, even giving the benefit of the doubt that "over two million maps...have been created" is an assertion of notability, the only sources are the site itself and a Wikipedia mirror of the previously speedied article. Google returns only blogs and forums. Unverifiable and dubiously notable. Demiurge 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify, 6M+ google hits, and it's pretty clear from even a cursory examination of those that it's gotten fairly widespread use and recognition. The article could be significantly better, and should be listed as a stub, but the absence of better content in the article isn't an adequate reason for deletion. Tarinth 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against recreation This article is spam, does not assert notability, and shows no third-party coverage. If these things can be changed, then by all means, let's have an article on Frappr. Until then, get rid of this mess. -- Kicking222 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My concern about this approach is that it creates a lot of wasted effort. Why not leave it and give some editors an opportunity to make the article better?  I'd suggest marking it with  . Tarinth 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But then it's still an advertisement. All the article does is list off what features the site has- read the articles on Facebook and MySpace and how they handle site features, then compare them to this article. It would be much better to just start all over again on this page. -- Kicking222 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling it an advert is still a bit of a subjective judgement, but you could address that by marking it with .  I'm not sure it's reasonable to compare it to Facebook which has had the benefit of a long period of editing, versus this relatively new article which probably should get the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to improve. Tarinth 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify. Someone should be able to provide a source or two during this discussion. --- RockMFR 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete until the article can pass WP:V, and has WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB as it is.  The article must pass guidelines and rules of wikipedia NOW...not some crystalballed time in the future. If it is important enough to have a 'keep' opinion, then take the time to actually get the article on par so we CAN keep it. Where are the Multiple, Reputable, Reliable, Independent, Third-party, published sources? Per WP:V . If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  6 million hits on Google?  Well check the Sources section on WP:V.  -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't have any particular interest in the subject and I'm not going to take the time to research additional sources for it, but my sense is that it is in enough widespread usage that it should have an article, and give others the opportunity to improve it rather than a deletion on the just because someone doesn't like the content of the article. Tarinth 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have five days during this AFD to correct the article. If you no one takes an interest in cleaning up the article during the AFD, the please tell me WHEN someone will?  We are not going to 'keep' and article based on a crystalballed 'maybe someone might clean it up in the future...possibly' -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? )
 * Keep and stubify -- The site is notable and popular enough that it deserves its own article.  Eugene  2x  Sign here  ☺   23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify, and clean up the article. Seems kinda spammy.  No prejudice if deleted.  Needs work, but I'm not really sure that WP:V is at issue. --Dennisthe2 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment WP:V is compeletely valid. Where are the Multiple, Reputable, Reliable, Independent, Third-party, published sources? -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6M Ghits just suggests to me a notability of near-obviousness. Yes, the article can be improved.  Continuously deleting it will never give it that chance.  Stubify, mark as unsourced if needed, and let it be and see how it fares after a few months.  As with many of these cases, time spent in AfD debates is better spent improving articles. Tarinth 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Counting Google hits is not research, and Google hits are not a measure of notability. See Search engine test for the several flaws in your argument.  You've put the name into the search engine.  What sources did Google turn up for you?  How much time have you spent responding with fallacious arguments based upon nothing but counting hits that you could have spent simply citing what Google turned up when you did your search?  Please cite sources.  Uncle G 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have plenty of time in 5 days to do so over this AFD run. If the article can not be cleaned up in that time, it most likely never will. It's had how long to be cleaned up and it hasn't?  At some point you have to put your foot down and say, "Source it, clean it up, and make it encyclopedic" You are right, time spend in AfD debates can be spent improving articles.  If you feel so strongly to keep it, then heed your own advice and improve the article. -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 19:09, 28 December 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.