Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remember the 13th


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember the 13th

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is part of a family of promotional articles for Swenzy. See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard for background.
 * "Swenzy" itself turned out not to be a real company, just some people creating hoax sites. Several Wikipedia articles were created or edited to publicize this. This is the last article involved with these hoaxes. --John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This was previously deleted as Remember The 13th Hoax at AfD and it's likely that the current creators are a sock of User:Juiceentertainment/User:Drew902. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd delete it myself, but I was slightly involved with the other AfD, so trying to show a little distance here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically the gist of the deletion of the first article centered around the fact that the website got a very light amount of coverage over an extremely short period of time, which didn't show that it was really in-depth. I don't see where the new version of the article really fixes any of those issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened an SPI, although I think that this might be a case of meatpuppetry or paid editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean we deleted this once already? I didn't know that. OK, it's spam. John Nagle (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This speedy was declined, but the problem is that the article doesn't actually list any new sources. It's all the same sources as the previous version, only with the text re-worded to make the sources seem as if the coverage was bigger and better than it was. An example is that the Museum of Hoaxes "article" is really just a brief mention... and the claims of it being "one of the biggest hoaxes of 2013" isn't substantiated by the link. It's actually fairly close to a previous version of the original version before I'd cleaned it up and edited it, which further confirms my suspicions that this is a sockpuppet of the original editor(s) of the first rendition of this. Really, the coverage here is still relatively minor in the grand scheme of thing. Most of the coverage is the internet ambivalently shrugging their shoulders and turning around to view more videos of kittens. None of the issues from the previous AfD have been addressed. If anyone's curious, I'll post a copy of the original version of the article to my userspace so you can compare the two. This not only needs to be deleted with fire, but I'd recommend salting both this page and the original page to avoid further re-creation. This is pretty much someone trying to use Wikipedia as free advertising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction, the only new source appears to be a Daily Dot article that was reposted on Salon. Still, not exactly enough to really show a depth of coverage. The Daily Dot somewhat falls into that line between usable and non-usable sources. I've used it, but usually after I've already asserted notability via other RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Salon article, too, is new and not-insubstantial - it was published after the AfD. Wily D


 * Delete I wrote this article, the Swenzy one and I made all of the edits. Since the "company" is not a real company as I thought when I made those edits, This needs to be deleted according to Wikipedia rules and laws. There shouldn't even be discussion for deletion send this to the trash, I feel ashamed and stupid of writing a bad article. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, you could have logged in with your account (the one you used to create this article) and tagged it with a G7 speedy deletion tag as the creator and only substantial contributor to the article. But aside from that, I see no speedy deletion criterion for this article that applies (aside from a possible G4 which was already declined). --  At am a  頭 17:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence that the IP is necessarily the page creator because of that. Either way...


 * delete per nom. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (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.