Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TopoQuest


 * 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. BanyanTree 09:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

TopoQuest

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy deletion nomination declined. Article about a website that gets all of 9 google hits in total, that was created by someone called Ryan Niemi - article creator was. User has also been adding links for this website to Digital raster graphic and Topographic map articles. Roleplayer (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability, coupled with the obvious WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues. The two together are fatal.  Powers T 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on addressing some of these issues. I've edited the article to remove any reference to me, and to make the content of more general interest. Specifically, this is a non-commercial (free) website intended to take the replace of TopoZone, which is no longer free to use and has left significant holes in the ability of Internet users to locate and view topographic maps online. This is one of the only free resources online with a database of topographic maps, a way to find them, and links to download them from archive.org, so I believe it's of interest to people searching for map data. Google pulled all 1300 pages of per-state / per-letter topographic name lists within the last 48 hours, listing every USGS topographic map in the US, but most of them are still being indexed. Meanwhile, I'm certainly open to ideas how to make this article of more general interest, and to avoid the possibility this becomes an inadvertent SPAM article.Ryanniemi. 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I removed the CSD A7 tag and embarrassingly missed the obvious WP:COI with article creator name of and named person Niemi in article! Although the editor has removed his name from the article it surely is still a conflict of interest. I didn't agree entirely with lack of notability and thought it could be addressed easily with references but the WP:COI is fatal :(   Nk.sheridan     Talk  23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After examining the WP:COI policies more closely, I'll concede that I have a conflict of interest as the owner of the website. I've attempted to keep the content neutral, and it would seem the content is or will be of some interest to Wikipedia users. I'm unable to find significant differences in neutrality or intent in relation to the TopoZone article. The site is free, and I have no financial gain from promoting it (quite the opposite, I'm losing significant amounts of money in the attempt to make the mapping data free and available for everyone to use, and will continue losing more and more as users use the site, but I continue primarily in my sense of civic duty on this project). Oh well, you have me on the WP:COI as the site owner. Ryanniemi. 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conflict of Interest I'd agree with you that the content of both TopoQuest and TopoZone is perhaps of interest to wikipedia users. It is certainly of interest to myself and friends who have an interest in geography and mapping. Of course I cannot speak for all users! As you have stated there is no significant difference between the neutrality and intent between stated articles. Likely TopoZone has not had the kind of  Scrutiny that the TopoQuest article has encountered! Sorry I am still delete as your article is WP:COI  Nk.sheridan     Talk  00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete COI or not, it does not even attempt to assert notability ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. And, I applaud Ryanniemi for his honesty.  Renee (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading more on the WP:WEB and working through creating the Libre_Map_Project article while trying to figure out the reference and notability issues, I believe I understand the notability problem on my TopoQuest article, and am in agreement that notability is lacking. Where I'm a bit more confused was on the external link to TopoQuest's map search tool I placed in the Digital raster graphic article that Roleplayer deleted just after flagging the TopoQuest article for deletion. From what I can tell, it was consistent with the types of other external links provided in that article, provided access to information that wasn't available in the other external links (specifically, better tools for searching for the map someone desires), and would seem to have been of interest to users viewing that article. During the couple days from when I added the link until Roleplayer deleted it, my web access logs show that around 250 users clicked through from the Digital raster graphic article. Of those, approximately 200 people proceeded to search for topographic maps in my database or list all the maps by state. Approximately 75 people then downloaded a total of 430 USGS digital topographic maps located through my website in Digital raster graphic format. It would seem that the external link was found useful by a fair number of Wikipedia users, and successfully helped them obtain the maps they were seeking, at no benefit to me (on the contrary, I paid for a portion of the bandwidth needed for those users to obtain their maps for free). Roleplayer nuked the link and noted on my talk page that I had posted an inappropriate link. I had a similar link on the Topographic map article, which resulted in around 100 click-throughs, 80 users performing searches, and 30 users downloading an additional 60 maps in Digital raster graphic form. It would appear the external link proved useful for readers of the Topographic map article as well, though less so than the link in the Digital raster graphic link. I'm a bit confused now, why were these external links inappropriate and removed? I had a collision with Roleplayer editing the Digital raster graphic article, I added a link to TerraServer, TopoQuest and TopoZone in the article that I now see was correct for him to nuke, and I'm not at all concerned about that, I'm just wondering about the external link at the bottom of that article. COI again on an external link that provides me no benefit yet apparently benefitted Wikipedia users that viewed those articles and clicked-through? Ryanniemi (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC), revision at 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment it was removed because it was spam, being a link to a non-notable website that you yourself are the creator of. -- Roleplayer (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Misc editing performed to clean the article up, reference additions, etc... Ryanniemi (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I might as well be the one and only keep for my article! On the COI issue, Wikipedia does allow for transparency, and I believe I've written the article in a neutral unbiased point of view, containing technical information that would be of interest to mapping and GIS enthusiasts. It's not a commercial site, and I do not benefit whether the article remains on Wikipedia or not. Ryanniemi (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (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.