Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudzilla (2nd nomination)


 * 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. If one discounts the opinions by those apparently connected to or canvassed from the website, consensus is unanimous. Also protecting against recreation.  Sandstein  18:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Fudzilla
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to pass WP:GNG. Doing some searching finds nothing of real use. Not a comment on the site itself, but it hasn't generated enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You sound very much like you simply don't like the site. If you would apply that level of scrutiny to every article on the English Wikipedia, you would've to delete about 50% of the articles (like they do on the German Wikipedia) --BoMbY (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never been to the site, so it is impossible for me to have a personal opinion. What I didn't find was sources to support the inclusion here, which is what policy here requires.  To assume it is personal is wasting your time.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Magus007: And how do you quantify enough? Fudzilla has been operating for nine years and is a respected hardware blog with a loyal fanbase and a good hit ratio. Stories are linked in other magazines and I fail to see how your "search" failed to spot them. Again this is not about whether inclusion should be based on WP:GNG but whether one person can conduct an suitable search before calling for a delete. Sites with a considerably lower profile have pages which are considerably longer than this modest effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus007 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your loyalty, but Wikipedia has a specific criteria for keeping articles that excludes things like fan base, years in service and such. See WP:BIG for examples.  The actual WP:GNG is the core that gives all criteria their authority, so it is what we have to use to objectively look at what to keep and what not to keep.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

there are nearly 200 references to fudzilla on wikipedia, does that count for anything?46.244.169.20 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse google hits with references. If the references isn't considered a reliable source via WP:RS and the coverage isn't significant, meaning the article is centered on the site and doesn't simply mention the site in passing, then the link is useless for establishing notability for our purposes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Fudzilla has proven to be a good source of information and an early indicator of tech industry news. This falls into the same issue that Dennis spoke of above, but it does help illustrate that other credible new sources have referred to Fudzilla as a way of providing sourcing or credibility for their work. I hope that providing a few links will help add some value to the review of the site. Note, none of these are reviews of the site directly. I apologize if I have (most likely) done this wrong. New York Times 6 references Wired Magazine 2 references CNN 1 reference Reuters 9 references Bloomburg has 1 reference no longer available, this is google cached result Ars Technical 175 references. A large portion is from the user forms, but that does show that its users do see Fudzilla as a resource. The user base show a variety of opinions on the quality of the information but following the story histories shows that Fudzilla often has it correct and is frequently one of the first sources. I hope this helps with the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GZva (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep: There are several links to Fudzilla from another website - wccftech.com, which is often referenced from wikipedia articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpertbg (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep: It sounds that tech news is just not the specialty area of Mr. Brown. Unless one lives under a rock, everybody in the tech news business has heard of fudzilla. Graphics cards and Computer Chips, is a relevant and very large industry. In this field, fudzilla is not only a tech-news site but one of the most important firsthand sources. Thats right, it is not a simple Tech News aggregator, but it is a Source. Often it is the source for Articles written by bigger Sites like Yahoo Finance, ZDnet, WCCFtech, Fool.com, liliputing, because apparently fudzillas staff knows the Bars and Clubs of tech workers better than the mainstream media. Besides, it is an example of gonzo journalism very unique in the tech sector, often with its own language and literate style. Fudzilla inherited the Role of TheInquirer after the staff there changed and refocused to something else. Like TheInquirer, Fudzilla introduced quite a few neologisms which are in popular use by tech-forum culture and other tech sites. - - - - These are all articles where the Original source has been Fudzilla. Unless you don't know these websites, i suggest you rather stop editing Wikipedia Articles about the tech industry and stick to shakespeare ;) Maksdampf (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE TO CLOSER - Once again, Fudzilla is canvassing on their website to keep this article. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep: One more article from independent source about Fudzilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpertbg (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep-delete: whatever. Who do you think you are to judge that a website is respectable or "gossip"? And even if you think you can, why is "E!" in your "Encyclopedia"? Last time I checked that's gossip. You even have entries for things as KLINGON LANGUAGE and KLINGON SHIPS, which DO NOT EXIST. But hey, you're the rulers of your walled garden, so do whatever you like. But please, don't expect to be deemed "respectable" (check your "encyclopedia" to see what respect is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.227.57.78 (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - back to policy, and away from opinion and canvassing. Simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are a number of search results, it appears none of them are reliable sources suitable for establishing the website as notable. The previous AfD closed as 'delete' and was plagued by outside canvassing issues, forged signatures and votes from IP users, single purpose accounts, and other unwanted behavior. It appears similar issues are resurfacing in the current AfD too. Elaenia (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG (and the closing reason behind the first AFD nomination). There isn't significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover this subject in-depth and as its primary focus. This is required in order to pass WP:GNG, and it does not. Also, note that they are canvassing votes here by discussing this AFD in their blog.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As was stated, it fails the general notability guidelines, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. This fact is reinforced by the fact that the article is an orphan, and, most importantly, the overall lack of sources. If, as it seems, there is significant bias related to this article, I would also suggest creation protection to avoid a repeat of events. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:51, 12 March 2016 (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.