Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andkon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[edit]
Andkon
Vanity article for non-notable site owner/blogger/forum poster. Site has an Alexa rank of 195,916, he's been involved in flamewars, okay, but I don't see any media attention or anything to support notability. W.marsh 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, at least if notability can be better established. --Daedalus-Prime 01:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)- Changing my vote to Delete. Attacks in AfD make me a deletionist... --Daedalus-Prime 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's nice to see someone of such high principles. Andkon 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Delete. Attacks in AfD make me a deletionist... --Daedalus-Prime 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete this is OBVIOUS VANITY! not notable and the facts given are unverifiable.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also vanity. Ifnord 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- NOT A VANITY PAGE I am "The Reverend", also known as Reverend Bijhan Al-Attack. My website is http://reverend.andkon.com. I am a fan-turned-friend of Andkon, but not Andkon himself, and I wrote the article. That disqualifies this as a vanity page. Popular Enough Also, I discovered him through a search engine, but he is linked through collegehumor.com and metafilter.com, both popular and established sites. His own stat counters, as he informs me, have counted on the arcade page he has recorded 10,000 unique visits a day, in contrast to the Alexa rank. As for his involvement in flamewars, that is a political issue, not to be judged by his worthiness as a wikipedia article. We have the whore that Hugh Grant slept with on this site, Andkon is hardly a misuse of space.
- Delete Sigh. I find it depressing that this could garner non-s.p. votes to keep, even weakly. Dottore So 10:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. Marcus22 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable blogger and forum poster.--Isotope23 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable vanity Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It may or may not be vanity, but it doesn't meet notability guidelines for bios or websites. — Haeleth Talk 16:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone in here is familiar with what non-notable is since I'm the only one here who runs a website that exceeds the ten thousand mark on a daily basis. Since no one here is able to quit college because of earning money from a website, no wonder everyone is so familiar with what non-notable is. And considering Alexa is rated malicious spyware by Norton and Spybot, I'm not exactly sure what such a low-standard is being used on Wikipedia. Oh yes, this is Andkon himself.
- Keep Who ever set this up for delete has issues.Andkon is a site with nearly 700 arcade games all free and without pop-ups or anything malcious. Not only that it features a webcomic that as spanned over 100 issues and is constantly in updation. To say this site is insginificant is quite ignorant. This is site is so popular that the author of it can actually make a living off of it out of ad revenue alone. If this site where to actually be deleted you would also need to delete almost every other article entry that is about a website. This article in fact, was not even done by Andras, but by a friend. Every single reason to delete this site is unfounded and/or horrbly incorrect. This is a joke and stains what Wiki really is. DrunkCat 18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable per proposed policy WP:WEB and nomination. I wish them the best of luck in making it notable, but so far, it doesn't qualify. --William Pietri 18:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Delete every article about a website, too, for that matter. WP is not a web guide. The criterion for inclusion is not "pays its way," but, instead, "is much discussed by second and third hand parties, has a large effect on the world around it." It may be pleasant, fun, well done, etc., and yet it is just another website for all of that. Geogre 18:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable vanity. No Account 18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment there seems to be some new-to-wikipedia people here and that's fine. Wikipedia is not just your private webhost, the only articles that are supposed to be here are ones which are notable. A good guideline of what that means is Wikipedia:Websites, which clearly this site does not pass. 10,000 hits a day is about enough for a 200,000 rank on Alexa... based on experience (2 million daily pageviews is about a rank of 1,500 for example). Ultimately there are millions of sites as popular as this one. Sorry. --W.marsh 19:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete this from Wikipedia. This is not a 'best of the web' site. If it was, Ankon.com would not feature.
No, marsh... closer to 500,000 "hits" per day. Please consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics#Web_Analytics_Concepts
And this is rich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker%2C_Missouri So a group of 5 people get an article, but a group that includes tens of thousands don't? Is is because we're black?
- Keep: This site is beneficial to a lot of people. Considering he gets hundreds of thousands of page hits, its a unique site. Considering the number of pages that only contain a single line or a reference that could easily be tied into another topic, at least this is a special, independent, stand-alone article.
- Non-Notable? Hey, I have an idea, lets be mean and ignore the facts and label this article as non-notable despite Andkon having an arcade with over 700 games with no pop-ads or malcious coding and having enough unique hits to gain a living from the money of ad revenue alone. Please make up another faux excuse to delete this site for this one is clearly wrong. DrunkCat 19:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad people enjoy the site, and kudos to the builders for making something that people like. But mildly successful businesses are not automatically notable; otherwise we'll have to list every sandwich shop and convenience story in the country. To change my vote, you'll need to come up with press clippings, Webby nominations, or an Alexa ranking two orders of magnitude higher. A more collegial and reasonable tone from pro-keep partisans would be nice, too. --William Pietri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Webby Awards is nothing but a get-rich scheme. Registration to be considered costs money and can be done by the website's owner. It's lovely see WP using spyware and get-rich schemes as standards. The corporate run media can't be trusted to report correctly on an elementary school science fair, so unfortunately I haven't been able to buy my way into newspapers through PR firms. Andkon 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I find the proposed alternative standard (that the site makes money and has a few ardent fans) unpersuasive and unverifiable. Best of luck in becoming notable, but so far I'm going by WP:WEB, Google's count of incoming links, and the other markers I mentioned. The world may not be properly honoring your talent and effort, but Wikipedia's not the place to fix that. --William Pietri 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- So why is a completely unremarkable place with five people staying while Andkon is out? 209.184.165.20 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable question. I can't find the policy, but you can see that the strong consensus is to keep all recognized places, no matter how small. My theory is that the legal and social recognition of cities and towns means that the world has formally noted them, and that they're therefore notable here. You might reasonably feel this is inconsistent, in which case I'd encourage you to lobby for a change in policy on notability of small towns. But WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP, like WP:WEB, are all pretty clear: existence isn't enough for notability; you have to really stand out from the crowd. --William Pietri 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- With almost a million entries, it'd be nice to see Wikipedia getting a bit more organized. I'd personally prefer a system *without* anonymous edits and semi- to fully-professional editors with anonymous/registered users only flagging for changes and entries. Under such a scheme I wouldn't get in but with a million entries I insist on having my part of the pie. If Nowheresville, USA gets in for absolutely no reason, I'm not sure why I or other like me shouldn't. I mean are you people saying all of the almost million are all more noteworthy than Andkon. You must be kidding, right? I'm pretty certain I have a bigger following than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ali_bin_Al-Hussein Andkon 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- That would also be an interesting way to run things, and if you think a site like that would be better, you should start it. Under Wikipedia's license, you can even start with the all the current Wikipedia content. I'm sorry that you're upset, and if you think you have found articles that don't meet the current criteria for inclusion, you should nominate them for deletion as well. Regards, --William Pietri 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- With almost a million entries, it'd be nice to see Wikipedia getting a bit more organized. I'd personally prefer a system *without* anonymous edits and semi- to fully-professional editors with anonymous/registered users only flagging for changes and entries. Under such a scheme I wouldn't get in but with a million entries I insist on having my part of the pie. If Nowheresville, USA gets in for absolutely no reason, I'm not sure why I or other like me shouldn't. I mean are you people saying all of the almost million are all more noteworthy than Andkon. You must be kidding, right? I'm pretty certain I have a bigger following than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ali_bin_Al-Hussein Andkon 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable question. I can't find the policy, but you can see that the strong consensus is to keep all recognized places, no matter how small. My theory is that the legal and social recognition of cities and towns means that the world has formally noted them, and that they're therefore notable here. You might reasonably feel this is inconsistent, in which case I'd encourage you to lobby for a change in policy on notability of small towns. But WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP, like WP:WEB, are all pretty clear: existence isn't enough for notability; you have to really stand out from the crowd. --William Pietri 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- So why is a completely unremarkable place with five people staying while Andkon is out? 209.184.165.20 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I find the proposed alternative standard (that the site makes money and has a few ardent fans) unpersuasive and unverifiable. Best of luck in becoming notable, but so far I'm going by WP:WEB, Google's count of incoming links, and the other markers I mentioned. The world may not be properly honoring your talent and effort, but Wikipedia's not the place to fix that. --William Pietri 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Webby Awards is nothing but a get-rich scheme. Registration to be considered costs money and can be done by the website's owner. It's lovely see WP using spyware and get-rich schemes as standards. The corporate run media can't be trusted to report correctly on an elementary school science fair, so unfortunately I haven't been able to buy my way into newspapers through PR firms. Andkon 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad people enjoy the site, and kudos to the builders for making something that people like. But mildly successful businesses are not automatically notable; otherwise we'll have to list every sandwich shop and convenience story in the country. To change my vote, you'll need to come up with press clippings, Webby nominations, or an Alexa ranking two orders of magnitude higher. A more collegial and reasonable tone from pro-keep partisans would be nice, too. --William Pietri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Hehe, thanks Clint and Drunky! Andkon 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment This is getting out of hand. Signed votes have been made by unbiased voters, unsigned votes by blatent sockpuppets/fans/etc. typically get very little weight so you're wasting your time. If you want to argue about the criteria for website notability, I think there is an open discussion linked to on the daily AfD page. --W.marsh 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Marsh, please don't slander like that. None of my reason are bias period. I'd love for you to point out where I deviated from facts and stats to show me where I was bias. If you want to delete this site for your own bias reason then I think this entire page should be voided. Oh hey, lets ignore the fact how long this article's been up too. DrunkCat 19:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Truth: Fans, yeah that's one thing a popular site would expect. Sockpuppets? None. The IP of beneficial comment is a friend from the same college I'm finishing the semester at, who also added the new hilarious but still correct bio on the front. LOL :-) Andkon 19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable No Guru 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, vanity issues, etc. Sliggy 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Double Standards? The Wikipedia self-appointed Death Squad should also kill the pages for Limecat and that weird Hello My Future Girlfriend. Both have terrible Alexa ranks. Andkon 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, mostly for vanity. Melchoir 02:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
