Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BinWeevils (second 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 speedy delete as non-notable, blatant advert. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BinWeevils

Also nominate copy of article, Bin Weevils. Concerns of WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SOCK, WP:RS, WP:N. Here is what happened with BinWeevils:

Spaking new WP:SPA editor User:Binweevils appeared, created an article. Has no other editing interests.
20 minutes later another new editor User:Biotricon appeared, continued on the article. Has no other editing interests.
45 minutes later another new editor User:Jameseditor appeared, continued on the article. Has no other editing interests.
30 minutes later anonymous new editor User:194.74.156.114 appeared, continued on the article. Has no other editing interests. IP address resolves to prism-server.prism-e.com. Prism Entertainment is the company that sells the service that is advertised in the article.

I suggest this be deleted. Maybe later a real editor who is not a sock puppet farm of the marketing department of Prism Entertainment creates a real sourced non-spam article about this, explaining notability per WP:WEB. Weregerbil 10:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Certainly needs rewriting to be less commercial and more NPOV, but I think it is probably notable in the same way as Inselkamf etc, seems to have a fair few mentions on google - PocklingtonDan 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon UK. The cartoons are notable as part of Nick UK, but this article is just spam for a NN website with an vanishingly tiny Alexa rank of 4,739,916 and a mere 11,000 ghits (which would count hits for the cartoons as well) ... the only part of WP:WEB this meets is due to its association with Nick UK, apparently otherwise it's an abysmal failure. Tubezone 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tubezone, as the only notability to be found is through Nick UK. -- Kicking222 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting to hear all of your comments about this Wiki page, which you are making out to sound as if it is some "Shocking" website with explicit details and so should be removed! When really it's just an extremely popular kids website and if anyone was wanting to find out more about this site, then Wiki would be the place to look for details. Re-directing to Nick as suggested above, is a pointless idea, as Nick only host a link to the Bin Weevils website. Whilst they own 50% of the site, they are more of a silent partner and are only involved in showing the Bin Weevils cartoons. Which i have provided a link from my wiki page to the Nick UK page. So it would be like suggesting NeoPets should be redirected to Viacom because they own NeoPets. So, let's remove the deletion tag, as im not trying to advertise this site. The site already has over 300,000 users signed up. It is merely an information page just like all the other pages on Wiki. Rather than everyone getting carried away on here and continue the deletion debate, i am more than happy to welcome someone to try and sort my page out so it fits in better with the Wiki standards as i am not so familiar with Wiki. Many Thanks

Keep per Weregerbil et al. overeaction if ever I've seen it- Please note: Don't bite the newbies--Ganju 17.20, 11 January 2007 (GMT)
Comment NeoPets: 5,920,000 ghits, Alexa rank of 145. My comments above may be harsh, and partly my personal humble opinion, but I think they're accurate in terms of whether this site qualifies as notable per WP standards. Tubezone 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the authors, User:Jameseditor, states above that the site has 300,000 users signed up. It would be a great help to this debate (and it would help me !vote ) if there were a 3rd party reference to this fact. NeoPets has been around for 8 years and has 3rd party sources. Wikipedia is not here to be a place to look for details for a commercial website. It is an encylopedia to provide concise information on topics that are already notable and verifyable. This debate is not making out this is a shocking website - the concerns expressed by the nominator were among others notability WP:N and reliable sources WP:RS. While it is fair not to bite the newbies, I think these issues need to be addressed. Once we address these two points, we can help make the page a neutral point of view as Jameseditor asks.Obina 21:09, 11 January 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.