Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starting Point Directory

Starting Point Directory

Procedural AFD discussion per speedy contest. --Czj 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for the nomination? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article does not established significance. A quick check shows it to be just like any number of boilerplate web directories which provide no new features or uniqueness in their technical implementation. StuffOfInterest 18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per StuffOfInterest. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this article has potential and should be improved by a willing editor; basically, this article is above the usual nonsence you mostly see on AfD and should be kept as its up to standard. --Anthonycfc^{(talk•c •ama)}
• Delete per StuffOfInterest. Valrith 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Historically, it was notable. The article claims that "in 1997 Starting Point Directory was the seventh most popular Internet site". While unreferenced, this claim is probably correct. On the basis that "once notable, always notable", I would keep this article. The current incarnation of Starting Point Directory doesn't impress me much, though. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I can't find any evidence for this history via Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. It may not be much to look at now, but it's definitely of historical interest. (By the way, I just realized that we have no article on the Magellan search engine. I hadn't thought of that site in years.) - EurekaLott 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. I am the original author of this wiki. This is my first wiki so please forgive me for my early mistakes. The directory has historical significance. Many early internet users remember Starting Point. - VariableX 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In that case the article should probably be written to emphasize the history rather than the current status of the website. Any external references pointing to the site's significance years back would be very helpful. Think of it as a historical record rather than an advertisement. Speaking of advertisement, let me ask you a direct question. Are you involved with the current or past operation of the website? If so, then you really should not be editing the article. Wikipedia discourages people from editing articles which they have a direct interest in such as biographies of people you are related to or websites which you operate. If a site is worth writing about then someone else should be doing the writing. Even if the current version of the article is deleted there is nothing to keep it from being created in the future in a way which does not present as spam or a personal interest. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the original author, but a citation was provided in an attempt to support the historical claims within the article [1]. I removed it, however, since it is not a reliable source (site owner's own blog post). We'll need to verify the claims in the article for it to stay. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I am not involved in the current or past operation of the site. It's a popular directory that I know a lot about and it wasn't listed so I thought it'd be a good candidate for my first wiki. I'll look to see if I can find better references for the popularity of the site. --VariableX 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Finding information from 10 years ago is difficult. Here are a couple links adding to the overall significance. Because I'm a wiki noob I don't know if they're reference-able:

"tenth most-linked website" http://web.archive.org/web/19981203120048/www.stpt.com/mediakit/press.html http://web.archive.org/web/19981207030221/www.stpt.com/mediakit/quotes.html

--VariableX 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)