Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
Craddock1 (talk | contribs)
217 edits
Line 157: Line 157:
::Fortunately, Google Cache has the banner: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kqDMd5_oE68J:www.top-site-list.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us check it out]
::Fortunately, Google Cache has the banner: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kqDMd5_oE68J:www.top-site-list.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us check it out]


'''Comment''' Again this user has ignored my previous comment. I think he needs to get new glasses. For Admin's reference I have checked the site and there is a banner to Amirite.com on the site which I don't see anything wrong with this. It even says Sign Up Now to Amirite.com on the banner!! You can't sign up to Amirite via Wikipedia!Craddock1 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
'''Comment''' Again this user has ignored my previous comment. I think he needs to get new glasses. For Admin's reference I am actually a student and can send you proof if you want. I and have no experience in backlinks - yet again PeterWesco talking rubbish and trying to discredit the article. I have checked the site and there is a banner to Amirite.com on the site which I don't see anything wrong with this. It even says Sign Up Now to Amirite.com on the banner!! You can't sign up to Amirite via Wikipedia!Craddock1 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


I also have a deep suspicion PeterWesco was an Amirite.com user that got banned and hence his deep hatred towards Amirite. I am an avid user and vaguely remember that name. I will do some further research into this.Craddock1 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Craddock1|Craddock1]] ([[User talk:Craddock1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Craddock1|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I also have a deep suspicion PeterWesco was an Amirite.com user that got banned and hence his deep hatred towards Amirite. I am an avid user and vaguely remember that name. I will do some further research into this.Craddock1 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Craddock1|Craddock1]] ([[User talk:Craddock1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Craddock1|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 01:25, 2 January 2013

Amirite

Amirite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable website. Fails WP:GNG. Sources appear to be mainly press releases or paid insertions. Contested speedy deletion. The appearance of a new account (User:James9210) and an IP (User:86.149.216.3) removing the speedy deletion template suggests that a closer look at the article creator might be advisable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It also appears the user Delicious Carbuncle has a personal grudge against the article / site and has very limited activity on Wikipedia - only making a few contributions per year Craddock1 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.

Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40

That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)


  • Strong Keep - As an avid Amirite user myself I completely disagree. I want to also apologise for asking my brother James to create an account - I agree that was immature and it won't happen again. I am new to Wikipedia but would love to be more involved in the community. I have met Jimmy Wales and was greatly inspired too!

I would also like to point out I have spent a considerable amount of time making the article up to Wikipedia Standards (around 12 hours), find references, resources, talking to users, editors and admins. I hope this is taken into account.

Regarding the case:

Amirite has received notable coverage as a fast growing startup similarly to other sites such as Formspring and Amen -

please look them up on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring

The Amirite article was also approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch

Nearly a billion votes have been processed on Amirite which shows it is remarkable so I completely disagree with that statement. Press coverage reflects the site is notable and furthermore won the UK's largest investment competition.
Also featured in Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite
Site has also been compared to twitter: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ - again showing it is notable

http://www.killerstartups.com/startup-spotlight/amirite-post-your-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amirite.com (+ Amirite.net) also has 30 million backlinks indexed in google

Site has over 100,000 twitter and facebook followers combined and was only released from Beta recently and 3 million pageviews per month, 700,000 posts, and 2 million comments. :Again this shows it is not 'unremarkable'.
Please close the deletion case. Multiple unsigned comments by user:Craddock1 Craddock1 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)grouped and signed by User:Excirial[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I have also heard of Amirite before and have seen it featured on various tech sites and saw a feature on CBS a while back. I believe Amirite has a high enough standing and reputation to be accepted. The article has also already been accepted by an AFC editor which shows it should be approved and the deletion case closed. Hdsmith7674 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    You have no edits at all outside this AFD, and your user and talk page. [1] I Googled about, and I don't see any mention on the CBS site about them. If you know of anyplace that would be considered a reliable source mentioning them, please post a link to it. Dream Focus 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Website meets WP:GNG after a look at sources, its clear it has been the subject of discussion in third party industry publications. The article needs some help stylistically, and it needs to come out of the orphanage, but it is generally well written and NPOV. Meanie (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOut of orphanage now and I've changed some more things in the article. Hopefully looks much better now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - I agree with the above and believe this entry also complies with WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Also agree that this has been vetted by an experienced editor. --NickAang 06:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse duplicate comment posted below

I don't think the killerstartups article is a paid release since it doesn't mention adversarial on it. Furthermore Amirite's twitter has over 62,000 followers which is significant: https://twitter.com/amiritecom And if you type Amirite.com and Amirite.net into google this brings more than 5 million results. This is significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ill not take a vote in this matter. I just did some tidying work. So all of the references are now dated, etc. #greatnews. Bed time for me!!! BTW Im a Canadian so I cant not be friendly... Its against my makeup.Boatingfaster (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse duplicate comment posted above

Comment As I have now seen Delicious Carbuncle is not fit to be commenting on people's article's, let alone marking them for deletion http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=125

Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.

Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40

That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

Comment I dont think anyone will disagree with the move and a disambiguation link going both ways between the two. Boatingfaster (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it matters either way since Amirite is not a noun. I've just done about 3 hours of research on and off line and found no reference to people termed Amirite - are you sure you have spelt Amirite correctly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I have done some reading want to invoke WP:SNOW - Good references in many places are present, the website is a high traffic area. The interest in this discussion by the number of people on here, in favor of keeping. If there are 32,000 articles on the internet talking about Amirite/Wikipedia then people are talking. If people are talking it further justifies WP:GNG. The WP:SNOW also fits with an article I read about WP not being a Bureaucracy, and it meets WP:SK rules, being that the nominator has failed to advance their argument. Boatingfaster (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • ATTENTION AfD CLOSING ADMIN - There are 2 SockPuppet investigations going on with many of the editors in this AfD discussion. Please do not close this AfD until all are identified/cleared of sock/meat puppetry. PeterWesco (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the number of hits on Google is not an indication of notability - it would help to have some actual articles from verifiable and reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking through the article, I can only find one source that has a byline that is independent of the subject – [4]. Everything else is PR Buzz, PR Newswire etc., or a sponsored post by Amirite, i.e. press releases. In other words, the article lacks multiple independent third-party sources. It's also concerning for an article to be almost entirely based on PR material. Andreas JN466 13:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does killerstartups count as a reliable source? I see over a hundred Wikipedia articles reference it, but it doesn't have its own article here. Apparently anyone can submit things to it. [5] Dream Focus 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after considering the evidence, I have struck my earlier !vote, and now believe the article should be deleted. As Jayen has noted, almost all of the references are PR sources, which are not considered reliable sources for notability. @DreamFocus, ifkillerstartups allows user content, then it would not normally be considered reliable, any more than IMDb. I am somewhat disappointed that this made it through AfC, although with the reference issues, I can see how it did. I still believe that an AfC-created article is due a presumption towards retention, although that presumption can be overcome, as in this case. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only some of the articles I have quoted are Press releases. This one for example is certainly not a paid release: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof is a very well known site with over 7 million monthly pageviews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakeUseOf

I don't think the killerstartups article is a paid release since it doesn't mention adversarial on it. Furthermore Amirite's twitter has over 62,000 followers which is significant: https://twitter.com/amiritecom And if you type Amirite.com and Amirite.net into google this brings more than 5 million results. This is significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Killerstartups does not have to be a "paid release" to be unreliable as a source - it just has to be edited by users, which it is. The number of twitter followers or the number of google hits, in and of themselves does not make a site notable. Significant it may be, but until it meets WP notability standards, it doesn't matter. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, just a bunch of "profiles" and press releases; more advertising created by a COI sockpuppet master. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you explain to me what is unreliable about the article? I just checked and the writer is a legitimate writer - there is no user written content

http://home.techhustlers.com/twalops-social-transaction-platform-will-make-you-cash-and-its-free/ http://www.killerstartups.com/startups-tools-and-guides/instagram-for-business/ - Instagram is a well known site too


You are ignoring the other sources too: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof

http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/amirite-net

In addition Amirite came as a top 3 winner in the UK's Largest Investment Conference. I read about it in a printed paper (I think it was the Evening Standard) you can even email the chief judge of the event by scrolling down: http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ (For your reference Jimmy Wales was one of the judges) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Craddock1 17:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lifestyle section puff pieces, regardless of source, do not create notability. PeterWesco (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually any coverage in reliable sources does indicate notability. That's how it works. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. Dream Focus 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarity. I was looking for the exact time to unleash a 1000 articles a week based on PR churn in lifestyle sections from around the USA. PeterWesco (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be rude. However miserable you feel you should not take this out on other people. Take a deep breath and you will feel better Craddock1

MakeUseOf is a reliable source, and it does not just quote the PR release. The techentrepreneursweek seems to be a reliable source also. Dream Focus 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I offended anyone. Review the references and ignore anything that uses "EXCITING" and is WP:SELF (www.amirite.com). Lets go through them: KillerStartups.com is a blog that you submit your site to (http://www.killerstartups.com/submit-startup/), Yahoo Finance is a PRESS RELEASE, http://www.crunchbase.com/company/amirite is WP:SPIP added by Amirite, etc. Thus eliminating all of the sources as WP:BLOG, WP:PROMO, WP:SELF except for a Boston Globe piece in the lifestyle section. Should this article remain on a lifestyle blurb? My belief, as stated above, is: NO. We can continue to dispute value of crap references all day, but it should be clear that if there were any references we would not be at AfD and we would not be having a back and fourth over the one possible reference that might add a micron of notability. PeterWesco (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ok I have thoroughly read this now. Wikipedia's rules on notability are:

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting ONE of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

The website has won a significant award as I have mentioned above (judged by Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales and Martin Warner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Warner and also has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial published works. While I understand your concerns that it has not been published in millions of published works it has indeed attracted significant attention. I do not have time to go through the whole of the Internet but that fact that there are 5 million backlinks going to the Amirite.net and .com combined suggests there are other mentions too.

If common sense prevails this article should definitely be kept Craddock1 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore the website satisfies at least one of the above as stated in the rules. If one is to look at things from an objective standpoint at the end of the day the question that must be asked is whether an article will benefit people, and whether the site is notable. Both of these are fulfilled. Craddock1 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition: 'When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education'. Amirite.com clearly has had effects on society and all the other sub-topics since it provides a platform for a significant amount of people to express their opinions on anything. In a way it is similar to wikipedia but for opinions only. If you go to the stats page at the very bottom of Amirite's homepage you can see this 752,771 posts, 778,479,487 votes, 1,886,998 comments, 34,786 users. This demonstrates it effects people and allows them to express themselves. Craddock1 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The site only has 80K backlinks (Not the 5M you state), from 585 domains, and all of those ramped up on Dec 1st. With 64000 of those backlinks coming from this site: top-site-list.com. I suspect this Wikipedia Article was part of the SEO plan as all of the banners on that site are now linking to the WikiPedia article. Trying to get the article to #1? Shall we look at the data together? 80000 backlinks with 64000 from one site all starting on Dec 1st, 2012 PeterWesco (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have re-read it also, thanks for pasting it. Although, I must say, it is usually pasted in most every WP:PROMO/WP:SPIP AfD where the article lacks sources/notability. Your insistence on backlinks meaning anything is making believe you are "SEO God" as only SEO people (WP:PROMO WP:SPIP) would even bother using backlinks as a justification for notability. Shall we discuss "Page Rank" next? How about "likes" on Facebook? Twitter followers? As I said above, if the site actually had valid refs from WP:RS we would not be here. WP:SPIP sources, WP:BLOGS, etc. would be the complete opposite of what you pasted: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. PeterWesco (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for that message. I just checked that site and cannot see one reference to the wikipedia article? I think you need to adjust your lenses. I just checked the resource you used 'ahrefs'. Those types of sites are known for their considerable inaccuracy and a 'quick fix'. The fact that you know of these sites and page rank and backlinks suggests you are familiar with S E O which I had never even heard of until know. I only knew what backlinks were because someone else mentioned these earlier and I looked them up. There is nothing wrong with advertising on other sites on top site list. All good sites do this. I am also not affiliated with Amirite which I'm sure you don't believe. I can send you my user account there though if you really want.

As I said earlier we are only here because there are people like you out there in the world. If I didn't know any better I would think you tried to submit one of your sites on wikipedia which got rejected because it lacked notability. Its also funny how you ignore all the positive points I make but jump on any old rubbish you can find.Craddock1 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice save by taking the banner down... Sadly you replaced it with an Amazon banner that links to: (spaced because Wikipedia does not like amazon links) http://www. amazon.com/ ?& tag=amiritecom-20&camp=216797&creative=394537&linkCode=ur1&adid=0T49QBXX12SQMC5K75Q3&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fconspiracy.top-site-list.com%2F Shall we end this charade now or would you like to proceed down this road of you not being a backlink SEO "god"? PeterWesco (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, Google Cache has the banner: check it out

Comment Again this user has ignored my previous comment. I think he needs to get new glasses. For Admin's reference I am actually a student and can send you proof if you want. I and have no experience in backlinks - yet again PeterWesco talking rubbish and trying to discredit the article. I have checked the site and there is a banner to Amirite.com on the site which I don't see anything wrong with this. It even says Sign Up Now to Amirite.com on the banner!! You can't sign up to Amirite via Wikipedia!Craddock1 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I also have a deep suspicion PeterWesco was an Amirite.com user that got banned and hence his deep hatred towards Amirite. I am an avid user and vaguely remember that name. I will do some further research into this.Craddock1 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

Comical I will consider this discussion ended. Good luck on your WP:SPIP WP:PAID PeterWesco (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GUYS MY SUSPICION IS CONFIRMED!!!!!!!! I just sent a message to an Admin on Amirite and this is what they said: Yes I remember that Peter fellow. He got banned a while back for breaching Amirite's rules and posting offensive material: http://amirite.com/user/PeterWesco/suspended — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because when I am trolling un-notable sites run by WP:PAID crews looking for WP:SPIP I often use the same username as I use on Wikipedia. It makes complete sense. Comical though, it shows you are admitting defeat. PeterWesco (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amirite&oldid=530844238"