Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alluc

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. Despite the proliferation of comments below from folks who might be anons piling on (as alluded to in the discussion), I've reviewed some of the citations in the article and a couple do need to be removed as not relevant, but there is sufficient evidence that the media attention required to establish notability has been achieved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alluc

[edit]
Alluc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nonnotable website. Contested speedy. Author's argument for notability: "If Alluc continues to grow more popular, it could be used as a tool for networks wanting to promote their shows." If that happens, come back then. NawlinWiki 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not because you are new, but new users often do ont understand Wikiepdia's policies and guidelines, and large numbers of new users in a deletion debate usually indicates that it has been promoted on the subject's website - a form of vote-stacking that is generally ineffective because this process is a discussion not a vote. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alluc is currently one of the most increasingly visited site everyday. The principle of the website is to provide links to thousands of TV shows and Movies to the public and members of Alluc.org. This site is very similar to peekvid.com, but in fact 'better'. We are merely adding to Wiki because this website is forecasted to become huge within the next year. Maybe you should visit the website or actually bother to read what we have written. There are many other reason why this should be not be deleted. If anymore questions to do with this website or anymore suggestions of examples what we add to this wiki page, then just reply here because it doesn't deserve to be deleted. --Dannyboy1010 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) -- — Dannyboy1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'm going to have to say weak keep on this one. There are two good references in the article - to articles in The Guardian and the National Post, which qualify as non-trivial and are substantively about the site. The article does, however, have a bit of an advertising feel to it, and could do with some editing to remove promotional language. It doesn't really need to break down every part of the site, for example. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, I'll see what I can change for now. Break down each part of the site, please explain further. Does this refer to how much content we have written? Do you suggest removing small parts, because we tried to add as much as we can for the time being so it would not be deleted. --Dannyboy1010 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the advertising feel can mostly be atributed to the articles themselves, if it had that feeling it was purely unintentional. We were just trying to prove it was "notable", and maybe somewhere crossed the line to "advertisement feel". I have removed some parts and placed hidden comments ("advertisement feeling here?") where I think that it should be adjusted.Iyenweyel 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Fox. The references are better than ¾ of the articles that survive AFD lately. As for removing content, I would discourage that until after the AFD. We can't tell people to pile on evidence of notability and then deduct points saying there is too much self-promotion! I would try to clean it up if it survives AFD but don't touch too much until then. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. As for the peekvid reference, an example would be its alexa rating, which I understand is bupkes in the end, but still. This site has a rating well into the 100,000s, and peekvid has a rating in the 600s. There's no comparison between the two. --NMChico24 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentWhere do you come up with your numbers? Traffic ranking for Alluc.org well into the 100,000s? Yesterday's ranking according to alexa.com : 1,136 .../edit: You probably looked at the numbers of the older site (allfg.org), which went down when the new site started Iyenweyel 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • commentok here are the real numbers for today:
        • traffic Rank for alluc.org today: 1,664 [2]
        • traffic Rank for allfg.org today: 514,763 [3]
  • comment added more sources Iyenweyel 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentAlso I would like to point out, that I randomly gone on to list of websites that are listed on Wiki and onto the internet forums and the first one I seletected was Jinx.com. So I went onto Alexa and look at there rank [4]. The Rank is 17,000+ . So if this is the first one I went onto and its rank is nearly 17 times as big, why do they have a wiki page, which is also much shorter, but not alluc? The Alexa rank proves what a success and what a huge site it is. --Dannyboy1010 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you can't denie the notability has been proven sufficiently, please upgrade the status of this article to something like that of gURL.com as it only has an advertlike-feeling --Iyenweyel 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I can't denie I am a "single purpose account"(for now). But it is all in "good faith" as you can see in how much we tried to improve the article conform the notabilitystandards. So please some "good faith" from the side of the admins too... Iyenweyel 11:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now; the sources are almost all about allfg, not alluc. What's the relationship? Also, the coverage seems incredibly sparse for something asserted to be so significant. Compare YouTube, which is all over the news. Most coverage of this seems to be in comparison with YouTube or other sites, generally much more significant ones at that. I suppose the inevitable copyright and takedown lawsuits will generate a bit of coverage... My Factiva search turns up one source about alluc (the Financial Post one), the balance are just "and also..." in lists. I do not subscribe to the strictly legalistic "two = multiple" interpretation of WP:N, I like multiple to mean a British Standard Several, so we can compare and establish that it's not just reprints of press releases or whatever. Whatever, two sources for something asserted to be of global significance is woeful. Might be significant one day? Yup, might. Or might be shut down for copyright violation. Come back when we know which. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • commment *sigh* see references, full story on alluc by the Guardian and the National Post which is more significant than most articles on websites in wikipedia. if you would actually read the article you would know that alluc first was named allfg... plus I added even more articles from other newssites who give full coverage... the related articles are merely as a reference to the mouth-to-mouth-spread of allfg(later alluc) Iyenweyel 09:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up with the name, just because you don't seem to have understood, its a simple name change! Allfg 3-4 months ago changed name, so maybe the page should be labelled Allfg/Alluc for the time being? Because allfg was around longer than the name Alluc, thats the reason for the amount of articles for each. So that really doesn't seem to be a problem. And as for the copyright, this has been explained before. The Alluc site does NOT host any content meaning it is TOTALLY legal and will never be shut down. Simple. The people who are doing the illegal side of this, is the uploaders who upload to Youtube, veoh, dailymotion etc etc. Maybe you can consider these as an answer to you and a couple reasons why this should remain. --Dannyboy1010 09:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted that now, thanks. Does not change anything. One, possibly two, non-trivial sources about this site, but mostly the discussion is in relation to other, more notable sites doing the same or similar things. I'll wait for the news stories on the inevitable copyright shutdown case. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment please keep in mind that we are only newcomers and that we not yet know fully how the wikipedia system work, instead of just saying delete you could actually read the article and help us improve it...

Wikipedia improves not only through the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

WP:BITE Iyenweyel 10:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every day we delete hundreds, sometimes thousands of articles. Many of these are the work of brand new users. The solution is not to keep articles on crap subjects, it's to patiently explain to the new users why we have deleted their articles. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah it was said that it wasn't notable enough so we added extra articles and improved the refferencing. then it was said there was an "advert feeling" and we tried to adjust the article. so I don't get what's wrong about it now. And it has been shown that those that gave a delete reason usually didn't read the article completely...Iyenweyel 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alluc&oldid=1070182307"