Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacHeist (3rd nomination)
- 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- MacHeist (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)
Original version from 2006 defunct as of 2016. Current Website is a marketing front end by native advertising company StackCommerce, which no longer provides any of the same functionality or features of the original, other than using the name. No longer has any notable coverage. Previous AfDs were from over a decade ago, so arguments then are now less relevant. LeflymanTalk 18:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I don't feel like making sure that the article is actually up to snuff, but it seems to be properly referenced and well written. We do not delete articles just because the thing they are about no longer exists. Rockphed (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: nearly all of the content is based on outdated references from the site itself, including by its original co-founders John Casasanta and Phil Ryu-- which, as primary sources do not meet reliability or notability. Other references that appear are synthesis, many which do not even discuss the article's topic, but have been selected by previous editors to create an Original Research narrative. Entire sections are such OR, particularly the Criticism and series of MacHeists, which include numerous unsubstantiated claims, such as in MacHeist II: "However, over the course of the stunt, many people in various communities became concerned they would be targeted or vulnerable."
- Beyond that, comparing a defunct niche commerce site-- which now exists purely for Google juice marketing-- with historical entities is a ridiculous comparison. We don't keep articles for non-notable, short-term promotional content nor list merchandise sold, like a sales catalog, which is what the "MacHeist" sections are. This article has sat fallow for years-- the last actual changes prior to mine were in 2014-- and won't be further improved, as the previous commenter acknowledged: "I don't feel like making sure that the article is actually up to snuff." As noted at the Notability guideline for Web content: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves."--LeflymanTalk 10:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- On looking at the sourcing, I agree that none of it is reliable. I did, however, find a source on Macheist [1] in the first book from the google books link above. There seem to be another 2 books with information about Macheist. If the preview is to be believed, all three books have at least enough information to support an article here (though not neccesarily this article). The one in my reference has enough information to support an article for certain. Rockphed (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond that, comparing a defunct niche commerce site-- which now exists purely for Google juice marketing-- with historical entities is a ridiculous comparison. We don't keep articles for non-notable, short-term promotional content nor list merchandise sold, like a sales catalog, which is what the "MacHeist" sections are. This article has sat fallow for years-- the last actual changes prior to mine were in 2014-- and won't be further improved, as the previous commenter acknowledged: "I don't feel like making sure that the article is actually up to snuff." As noted at the Notability guideline for Web content: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves."--LeflymanTalk 10:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- ^ Chen, Brian X. (2011). Always On: How the iPhone Unlocked the Anything-Anytime-Anywhere Future--and Locked us In. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-82210-0. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
- Comment I do not think the previous deletion discussions were handled correctly. The first one should have been a delete close (based on weight of arguments and appeal to policy. Most of the keeps were "it's important" while the deletes were "there are no sources!" The second was bad from both directions and was just a straight vote. Rockphed (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:11, 30 September 2019 (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.