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
→‎Amirite: r to dream focus
Craddock1 (talk | contribs)
217 edits
Line 138: Line 138:
:So: As I know how it feels when someone changes my work extensively, I am now revoking anything I did. I'm also removing the copied article from my personal space. I invite anyone who wishes to have it as it is now in my user space, to write so on my talk page, or email me at my wp username on gmail. I'm saving a copy at home. [[User:Pashute|פשוט pashute ♫]] ([[User talk:Pashute|talk]]) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:So: As I know how it feels when someone changes my work extensively, I am now revoking anything I did. I'm also removing the copied article from my personal space. I invite anyone who wishes to have it as it is now in my user space, to write so on my talk page, or email me at my wp username on gmail. I'm saving a copy at home. [[User:Pashute|פשוט pashute ♫]] ([[User talk:Pashute|talk]]) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Another attempt at desperately trying to manufacture notability for an unknown company, and the socks are not helping. In fact, the coverage that's there at the moment is, at best, [[WP:ROUTINE|routine]] for the tech rags that cover startups. Fails [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:WEB]]. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§[[User:FreeRangeFrog|<span style="color:#00CA00">FreeRangeFrog</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:FreeRangeFrog|croak]]</sup> 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Another attempt at desperately trying to manufacture notability for an unknown company, and the socks are not helping. In fact, the coverage that's there at the moment is, at best, [[WP:ROUTINE|routine]] for the tech rags that cover startups. Fails [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:WEB]]. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§[[User:FreeRangeFrog|<span style="color:#00CA00">FreeRangeFrog</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:FreeRangeFrog|croak]]</sup> 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

'''Comment'''All the valid resources have been removed from the article by someoen. For Admin's eyes - please see article history. I have also proof they won that competition. I have also found multiple articles online from notable sources. Furthermore this competition was judgeed by leading Venture Capital firms such as such as Accel, Doughty Hanson, Index Ventures and Fidelity Growth Partners. If the following pages are permitted to have wikipedia pages I see now reason as to not allow Amirite to have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herotopia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring
Many of the points above are invalid since they do not realize Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same site. Furthermore my recent research invalidates all of the deletes request stating no notable and third party sources[[User:Craddock1|Craddock1]] ([[User talk:Craddock1|talk]]) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Revision as of 04:01, 4 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 "Unremarkable Website" is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not built on opinions. Also as I recall one is supposed to assume good faith. Meanie (talk) 03:47, 29 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)
  • CommentFOR ADMIN'S EYES: As I have now seen you are 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)

  • 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: Amen (website)  · Formspring

    The Amirite article was also approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow 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]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. -bonadea contributions talk 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, (changed from k) clearly meets WP:GNG and it went through WP:AFC, where it was vetted by an experienced editor prior to being moved to mainspace. AfC editors are experienced, and do not approve articles that do not meet the minimum GNG standards. There should be a presumption of notability for articles that have been through the AfC process. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[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]

*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]
  • Keep(edited to fix link) At the time of this article's nomination for deletion, there were references in the article. The Boston Globe is certainly a reliable site, and has a press release they wouldn't publish unless they considered them important. [1]. Others have mentioned CBS and whatnot. (update) MakeUseOf has 20 million hits a day, and is clearly a reliable source. I agree that the significant coverage they gave to this website [2] counts. I believe other sources exist, just hard to find a proper link to them all. Dream Focus 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*******One of the Globe Articles is an Article. Boatingfaster (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) ********http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/05/15/amirite/ - specifically this one Boatingfaster (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse duplicate comment posted below
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)

  • Whatever the outcome, this should be moved to Amirite (website) and an article should be written on the Amirite people of Trans-Jordan, which would be the primary topic for this term. bd2412 T 04:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 – [3]. 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]
  • 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: 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]
  • 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]
          • Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever yet to believe that MakeUseOf is a reliable source. Their article contains a ton of the typical fluff, but barely any reputable secondary sources testifying to their reputability. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Two notable print magazines give them praise and they have over 20 million views a month. They have a staff of paid editors who generate their content. A lot of articles currently use them as a reference. You can ask on the reliable sources noticeboard if you sincerely doubt they are a reliable source. I think it should be pretty obvious. Dream Focus 07:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being in a top 100 isn't that great, really (PC Magazine) and the other (Washington Post), gives them half a sentence, "...Makeuseof.com, which offers how-to's and cool Web sites and apps in everything from maps to productivity." That's not praise, BTW, it's a statement that the site exists. Their 20 million page views, that's what they claim themselves and besides, having lots of page views doesn't make something a reliable source. If it did, Wikipedia would be accepted as a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 3 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:M

    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 Jimmy Wales and Martin Warner 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)
          • 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]
            • Comment @Craddock1. First, no one, especially not the admins, care about the users that are weighing in on this AfD, other than if they are socks. This is about the article, not personalities, so please assume good faith and lay off the negative comments about other editors' motivations or background. I would especially be careful about the latter, as WP has a strict policy about outing. What happens off-wiki is not relevant to this discussion. The notability (or lack thereof) of the article is what is at issue.

              What you need to concentrate on is reliable and verifiable sources. Backlinks don't count, nor do self-published accounts, such as press releases.

              If the article has won a significant award, then a reliable source, and likely multiple reliable sources should cover it. The fact that Jimbo was a judge is not significant as far as notability. If you doubt that, ask him on his talkpage - Jimbo actually reads it and responds. Focus on the article, not editors. GregJackP Boomer! 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

              • Comment I read that it won this award a while back but I can't find yet since it was printer in a newspaper - I think the Evening Standard (London Paper). I will do further research and also see if I can find any more articles of which I am sure there are but I believe I have supplied enough. Regarding what you say about good faith: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Craddock1 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
                • Comment - what evidence to the contrary? The only thing I have seen from any of the editors that are arguing for deletion is that they disagree with your position, which is not evidence of bad faith. Again, please lay off of the negative comments. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same hyped-up material reproduced on different sources don't establish notability. If the website/social network becomes genuinely notable, independent reliable sources meeting the necessary requirements will appear - but for now, they aren't in evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and note that it is not the only business using that name, so if it were kept it should be renamed. As far as I can tell from searches Amirite.com is not notable. As far as I can see, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is to bring the website to people's attention in the hopes of making the website notable. It is worth noting that "Amirite" is also used as a brand-name by a number of companies - one company sells Amirite rucksacks, another sells Amirite furniture; there is also an Amirite.net with joke pictures. If this article were to be retained, the article should be renamed Amirite.com, to distinguish from other businesses using Amirite as a brand-name.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pashute has pointed out that Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same website. This does not invalidate the point that more than one business uses "Amirite" as a brand-name. I stand by the argument that were this article to be retained, it should be renamed. I would not be in the least surprised if part of the purpose of having a Wikipedia article on Amirite was to try to claim the brand-name for the website. By its nature, a website gets more hits than a real-world product - but that does not make it more notable in the real world. Remember, no good evidence of notability has been presented for any of them.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MelbourneStar that the Alexa argument is flawed. WP:WEB says "High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." It does not say that having "high-traffic" makes a website notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I agree about the Alexa argument, but what do you say about my latest edits.
        • after removing all the seemingly PR sources).
        • what do you say about UrbanLegends.com,
        • what about the parody website
        • what about the requests by web developers for creating a clone of amirite.net.
      • Also, User:toddy1 wrote that amirite.net is a different site altogether dealing with jokes. It seems he got it all wrong. Take a look at the two websites. They are the same. The jokes are the style of users on the website.
      • Last but not least, (ok, I hope the readers are able to take a joke, without throwing away my former issues) the Amirite website has actually saved peoples lives!! See here פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Also yet another thinly veiled advertisment/promo piece masquerading as an article with manufactured "coverage". As others have said press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same promotional nonsense on other sites do not establilsh notabilty. ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ukexpat - obviously you have not looked at the article recently.
All the "multiple citations of same promotional nonsense" have been removed.
So its actually a question of being truthful. Is this a notable website? IMHO, at least in its old form as Amirite.net, it is. And for the reasons I showed in the now edited article. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So who's left on the Keep list? or was the creation itself done by a sock puppet? (and if so this is a lost case)
If still applicable, and there's anyone left who still wants to discuss this at all, could someone please answer my two cents about the notability through mention on urbanlegends.com and through other indirect indicators of usage totally independent of the site owners, authors and paid puppets? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other 'indirect indicators' of notability are not useful. We need 3rd party reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. Without that, it is not notable. Jujutacular (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok summary till now, as far as I understand:
a. About Craddock1:
  • user:Craddock1 (talk) created the page.
  • Investigation by user:PeterWesco found a double with James, but Craddock1 explained it as his brother.
    • The investigation concludes that there may be some ties between Craddock1 and the other group of sock-puppets but has not come up with evidence, so it is left as two separate and unrelated groups. From the talk page it seems that Craddock1 is NOT behaving like a troll.
  • Craddock has been banned from further activity because of various bad behavior here and elsewhere.
    • In particular craddock1 had claimed that the pro-deletion users had an ax to grind against the Amirite website.
    • He furthermore had done some serious accusations, while disclosing personal facts about some of the wikipedia users, irrelevant to the discussion, and acting aggressively in other ways.
  • Craddoc1 has appologized and promised to stop activity on this page and this entry. but,
  • Craddoc1 has asked to delete the content of the page, and all other copies of it, since it's been "hijacked" in his eyes.
    • Since I have done most of the editing lately, I'm probably to blame as the "hijacker".
b. Delete requests:
  • Users calling for deletion (at least 5) found the original references in the article to have been either a strong dependency on their citing - being of promotional type, or being non-editorial user entered material, and so losing the power of proving notability.
  • Most of the users claim that the article was created and edited as part of a coordinated and paid for promotion job by the website owners or promoters. These include at least one user who formerly voted KEEP.
c. Keep requests:
  • The prize of 3rd place in the http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ according to Craddoc1 has not been discussed here further afaik.
  • The mention of web terms in UrbanLegends.com that have originated from usage in Amirite.net has also been set down as of not enough importance.
  • Their are only two genuine wp users left who wish to KEEP. Myself and the the colorful dreamer, and following all this, especially the last clause of the Delete Requests, I'm out of here. But leaving my KEEP, if its worth anything. I still think the site is noteworthy. I must say I enjoy their hangman game when waiting for things to compile, and as I pointed out before, the site saved some people's lives. Anyway: let it go...
So: As I know how it feels when someone changes my work extensively, I am now revoking anything I did. I'm also removing the copied article from my personal space. I invite anyone who wishes to have it as it is now in my user space, to write so on my talk page, or email me at my wp username on gmail. I'm saving a copy at home. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAll the valid resources have been removed from the article by someoen. For Admin's eyes - please see article history. I have also proof they won that competition. I have also found multiple articles online from notable sources. Furthermore this competition was judgeed by leading Venture Capital firms such as such as Accel, Doughty Hanson, Index Ventures and Fidelity Growth Partners. If the following pages are permitted to have wikipedia pages I see now reason as to not allow Amirite to have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herotopia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring Many of the points above are invalid since they do not realize Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same site. Furthermore my recent research invalidates all of the deletes request stating no notable and third party sourcesCraddock1 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amirite&oldid=531207563"