Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudzilla


 * 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. The bar for keeping the article is notability, not whether it exists. Arguments based on the WP:WEB notability criteria are generally given precedence over arguments listed here (e.g. "other crap exists"). It's difficult to judge "consensus" when there's undeniably a lot of meatpuppetry here (sneaky, forging signatures!) Nonetheless, arguments based on the lack of notability, in the form of non-trivial mention in reliable sources, proved most persuasive. If reliable, non-trivial secondary sources can be found discussing the topic, then the article could conceivably be recreated after discussion at deletion review. MastCell Talk 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fudzilla

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-noteable website. Article is very poorly written, which appears to have been started by the staff of the website. WP:WEB seems lacking AMDZone 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Appears to have been started by the staff of the website." Do you have any proof to back up this assertion?  Deletion of articles are not supposed to be started as fishing expeditions. - MSTCrow 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * AMDFanzone was created on the 4th, and the entirety of his edits are creating this AfD, and writing "Hi" on his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AMDZone. This AfD should be terminated immediately due to the highly suspicious nature of the user AMDZone. The familiarity he has with the system, combined with the pinpoint targeting of his edits, strongly points to a sock. - MSTCrow 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Canvassing on the site itself leads me to beleive we may get a lot of "support" appearing out of nowhere. Caveat administrator. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, this has G11 "come read us, come read us, we need traffic!" plastered all over it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Case for note may be possible. That said, the article at present seems to be largely offtopic and to contain so many links back to Fudzilla as to be somewhat circumspect. Several other independent sources don't seem to actually reference the site. Major cleanup required if retained, only one source available to make a case for note, and that, while decent, isn't print.  MrZaius  talk  04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, so you call this one G11? Which phrases you are pointing at? The false benchmarks and speculations? So The Inquirer does that too, almost always, and already lost creditability. I forgot the RyderMark stuff was also started by Fuad, the founder of this tech tabloid. What left, it's a tech tabloid, started by an ex-writer from The Inquirer (RyderMark again!). Besides that, what about these two articles, Tom's Hardware and AnandTech? Nothing was referenced and nothing printed was presented in those articles either, only a brief overview and links to the site and other parts of it, so are they notable (enough)? Why don't one raise AfDs to those articles even they do not have their notability explained? Because they have higher reputation among people than this one? Because they are are considered a credited source? Besides, "Notable" here means "multiple not trivial sources". Okay, the aforementioned two articles also don't have this in respective context, and I don't see any notability in those articles, so beside the non-trivial sources, I say there are no solid rationale for this article should be deleted, which unless you considered the scoop section was "unremarkable" and thus the whole article resembles Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, with only overviews and links. --202.71.240.18 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I concur with G11 -- this guy is using Wikipedia to promote his website. Even when you Google for his name, Wikipedia is the #2 hit after the URL. The reason Tom's Hardware and AnadTech have entries is because they are 10+ years old, and yes, I've seen both in print sources.  Maybe someday this guy will be noteworthy, but its just another one of the hundreds of hardware review sites that get deleted from here every year. AMDZone 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Wikipedia is the #1 or #2 hit on just about every google search. Is every wikipedia entry looking for advertisement then? Better delete it all just in case! 207.93.211.50 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Just as AMDZone said, wikipedia tops google results pretty quickly, I've seen it many a times. This is one of the reasons people love wikipedia is so that they can get free attention, that's all there is to it. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I believe that Faud is not the one who added his site here. Second, his site does exist, and thus does deserve a place on here: the site where you can find anything. If you wish to remove a valid review site from the wikipedia, then I lose much respect for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.242.118.131 (talk • contribs).
 * — 72.242.118.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Your policy is no good - deleting written articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.6.114 (talk • contribs)
 * — 91.154.6.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm sorry &mdash; I can't resist... as opposed to deleting articles not yet written? &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, Fudzilla is a famous tech website in tech-related communities. Not always famous in a good way but still, it exists, it's controversial in many aspects and it gets lots of hits from people interested in the latest tech rumors, such as me. This website deserves a spot on wikipedia, allthough the article itself could be somewhat more objective by also mentioning the attitude that many serious tech enthusiasts have towards this website. The article used to be even worse than it is now, but that would be a reason to change the article rather than deleting it. -- ♫Jakko♫   (Talk to me!)   (signature forged by — 82.215.51.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic., The Evil Spartan 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also want to ask the people calling for deletion if they are regular readers, or employees of the competiting magazine Dailytech? It seems that you have made links to lots of Dailytech stories on Wikipedia. Is this a method of controlling the competition? Isn't it true that the editor of Fudzilla once told you to "get a life"? I would suggest a call for a better edit after this is done I suggest that the entry is protected to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a technique of harming a business rival in the future. Magus007 (talk) signature forged by — 87.126.11.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Evil Spartan 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, You do not delete articles just because you have a personal beef with the Inquirer and its off-shoots. The fact is that the magazine exists.  If you delete it you have to delete every magazine and newspaper that exists on the site on the grounds that they might be advertising.  Further you cannot prove that he has put the entry in for publicity.  Just because you *think* he has does not make it so.  If anyone has created publicity for Fudzilla it is you.  Now there are stories being written about how Wikipedia has a history of deleting anything associated with the Inquirer. Looking at the entry, with its anti-Fudzilla bile, I would have thought it unlikely that this entry has been written by him.
 * Weak keep - article does have some mentions on google news, even now - notability is roughly established. That being said, this meatpuppetry and trolling by members of the site (i.e., "dont' delete it so it won't look like you're fighting against your competition") is totally off-putting. The Evil Spartan 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I have to agree that Fudzilla does exist and has enough recognition to warrant a keep. Since when do people in Wikipedia get to decide what is worth reading about? This is not a dictatorship! If a site or thing validly exists then Wikipedia should be required to keep it.--Flashstar 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe since we created the notability guidelines so that any old person couldn't add whatever to the site? Try out WP:NOT. The Evil Spartan 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does not apply it is a magazine so it is known and notable. Fudo would probably not be that notable to be worthy of an entry]. [User:Magus007|Magus007]] (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC


 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is not the place to make wild guesses about who wrote what, or deleting the content of anyone or anything you don't like. It's also an encyclopedia, not a top 10 only site. - MSTCrow 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

--Quatermass 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a valid entry about a commercial business.
 * Keep. I see little difference between this tech site and others similar to it whose entries on Wikipedia are not disputed.  Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPAM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT, the only two sections that I see applying to this entry, should this be deleted we'd better go after all of the Internet tech review sites.  Has Wikipedia simply become another forum for petty vendetta? Joegee 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The site is not a vanity site of no importance.  It it used by enough people and linked to enough by other pages to be notable enough not to delete. Twfowler 22:17, 10 July 2007 (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.