Talk:Is Anybody Down?

Object of the article is a transitory phenomenon and the article simply advertises the site

There's no credible reason why this particularly unsavoury site needs to be included as anything more than a footnote on a more appropriate article page.

The primary matter of general interest to date is that the proprietors of the site are involved with some extremely unsavoury legal shenanigans, which will almost certainly culminate in extremely serious legal ramifications. Perhaps that would make the content suitable for inclusion from the legal aspects - after all, it's an almost textbook example of extortion, fraud, and human stupidity, not to mention potential libel as the owners spout off all kinds of conspiracy theories - but it doesn't appear to offer anything of lasting value apart from the train-wreck factor. Good news material, but hardly a WP article!

Realistically, it's a badly-thought-out, rather puerile imitation of more important examples of this morally questionable behaviour, which are better documented and therefore more appropriately targeted examples of this type of thing.

I have some concern, too, that the article is offering little in the way of information, while being potentially nothing more than an advertisement for the website in question.

I also realise this talk content is now longer than the actual article! Cephas Atheos (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The article as originally written was far, far from an advertisement. It was pretty close to being an attack page against the website in question. Shortly after I started the deletion discussion, the article was trimmed down to what you see now. As an indication of just how this is *not* an ad, the IP generally associated with the site itself has !voted in the deletion discussion to have it removed. The deletion discussion continues, and looks at this point to be highly likely to result in it being deleted. That said, if any mainstream sources pick up on the ongoing blog-war against the site, it may actually suddenly meet notability requirements, at which point a neutral article could return. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ars Technica article, reliable source?

Looks like we may have our first English, fully reliable source for this. [1] - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks to me to qualify. Ars Technica was qualified as an RS for news in the early days of WP:RSN. It appears to be an article rather than a journal entry (as met concern there); the story is currently listed on the Ars Technica front-page as an in-depth report, and the writer is a professional with a respectable list of credits. Looks good! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also an NPR interview, here: http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/nov/16/is-anybody-down/ Apologies for my not signing/possibly following protocol - new to wikipedia editing, and thought this was relevant but did not want to edit the actual page.199.101.131.75 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Self Advertising

Many of the "sources" are from the site itself and considering the user's location, I am pretty sure this is a cry for attention. There is also little importance of this company as it hasn't really affected people on the scale that Hunter Moore did. But this is only my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboy5525 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I also removed two sentences claiming that Craig Brittain was interviewed because the source didn't mention this at all and is therefore not a reliable source. Given the rules, "facts" without reliable sources backing it up are to be removed.

Notability and recentism tags

I have removed some just-added tags:

• The "recentism" tags is for articles or sections where the focus is too much on recent events rather than on the topic as a whole. As the website that is the subject here is less than a year old, there are only recent events; there is no deep historical context which is being overlooked.
• The question of whether the topic meets notability guidelines ha already been address - an AfD was raised for the question of whether the topic met notability guidelines, and the decision was a clear "keep", as sufficient outside coverage was found.

I have left the POV tag for now, awaiting the talk page comments of the tagger. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed my POV tag. I did not realize this had been to AfD. But just out of curiosity, did the person (non-admin) who closed the AfD give you or anyone else a valid rationale for doing so? Nevermind, just spoke to the closer. Carry on... §FreeRangeFrog 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)