Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 May 31
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of many pages.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The results of these debates were to delete the relevant articles.
Please do not edit this page.
Wikispam. The PMachines website looks impressive, there are 90000-odd Google hits on "ExpressionEngine," they look legitimate, I think it's a real product... but this article is still wikispam. Dpbsmith 01:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm on the fence about this one. Yeah, it's an advert, but the product very well may be encyclopædic. Can't figure out how to vote on this one. blankfaze | ♫ 02:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 03:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Article contains no reason to think this is encyclopedic, it's just a sales blurb. Andrewa 03:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Comment: it absolutely is not an advert. I'm a user on said application, and upon finding very little information on it around the internet, I added it to the wikipedia. please note that there is also a movable type entry, which is not considered spam. is this simply because MT is a free product? Juusan 08:57, 24 May 2004
- Looks fairly notable, comparison to Movable Type seems reasonable. I think this article could be salvaged. No vote at this time. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:47, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Could need some work, but doesn't smell like a sales pitch to me (quite opposite actually). Abigail 11:28, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Lean towards delete. If you start excluding unrelated products, the 90K starts dropping rapidly; "Expression Engine" -regular -advantage -tales is down to 15K. Movable Type, on the otherhand, get4 MILLION hits. I am fairly anti-Borg, and in a forum where NPOV doesn't matter, would shamelesly plug alternatives. However, this is a self-admittedly new product, whose currency in the marketplace seems yet unproved. I guess I see the question as being, does WP want to be leading edge, or bleeding edge. Niteowlneils 20:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not clear why it is encyclopedic. Andris 05:17, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: advert for a nonnotable product. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- What makes this product notable? At the moment, delete. Average Earthman 11:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Do we really need this G-Man 00:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, I think. Move to Kim Smith, I think, see rambling below. Article needs work, much too promotional. No, we don't really need it, but I don't think we need to delete it. My first reaction was that this was some rank amateur who couldn't afford the webspace for a resume, but I don't think that's true. Under the name "Kim Kay Smith" she does show up as a model of apparently some note. We need to figure out which is http://www.webwombat.com.au/lifestyle/fashion_beauty/smith.htm , an Australian site, has a non-sock-puppety article praising her as the next IT girl. She's been on the cover of Maxim, as documented on the not-its-own-domain fan site http://members.fortunecity.com/internet41/bio.html , several other magazines, assuming the magazine covers haven't been faked/Photoshopped and I don't think they are. Both sites say she (was) in the Victoria's Secret catalog, circa 2001. Whoa! "Kim Smith" Maxim yields a bunch of hits. 44,000 and most of them seem to be to her. The word "supermodel" seems to be being thrown around quite a bit. No, I'm not influenced at all by the fact that I find her pictures very attractive, no sir. Well, maybe just a little influenced. Oh, by the way, she's no relation. Dpbsmith 03:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Come ON! She wears a SIZE 9 SHOE. She was born in HOUSTON! She got plastered at a model search. How much more notable can you become? Well, she's not Becky Owen (nobody could ever ever ever be Becky (sob)) but she's OUR Kimmy. Delete. Denni 04:28, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
I added the VfD header. RickK 04:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Easily notable enough, just by being on the cover of Maxim. Keep. Everyking 06:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Everyking. Keep. Rhymeless 07:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Guess what, her notability is irrelevant, because this is a copy/paste job from another site: [1]. Listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:35, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, good (my spine was developing curvature from too much bending over backwards). Dpbsmith 17:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debates and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issues or the deletions should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.