Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conviction 365

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 of the debate was delete after excluding sockpuppet votes. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conviction 365

By the article's own admission the website has never ammounted to much ("Little was accomplished for almost a year"). Not of encyclopedic value. Chick Bowen 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Not sure why it was considered notable. Ashibaka (tock) 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I put some kind of effort and research into writing that, I see this just like the article on George Ouzounian, there's no reason to delete it, so I would vote no on doing so. 08:10 2 December, 2004 Comment posted by User:69.254.230.101, the article creator. The original version claimed otherwise, though he has now edited this.

I don't mean to question your integrity, but what you put seems odd to me. Why would the author vote to delete his own article? That doesn't make sense. User:64.218.194.120

And yet you said delete? Whatever, I don't see this as too bad an article. Keep --YixilTesiphon 02:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it notable? Ashibaka (tock) 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn site.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Olorin28 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a decent article, keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 64.126.61.223 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-03 03:39:03 (UTC) (User's only edit)
• Delete - it's a decent article, but it still isn't notable. Worthawholebean 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website with no alexa ranking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete With Extreme Prejudice. Site does not even exist yet for chrissakes. I mean there's a page but it says under construction. As a bonus, author on his blog has posts like this (re "protesters": "Well you suck dick. You retarded hippys have no other life other than to piss the rest of us useful people off." Gee that's a contribution to the sum total of human knowledge. Herostratus 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The site does exist, both blogs are there, the fact the site needs work isn't a fact anyone is trying to hide, both the author of the wikipedia article and "Rise and Fall" admit that they're still working on the site. I agree with you in that some of the stuff "Rise and Fall" have written is kind of rude, but as I said earlier, George Ouzounian has said some pretty offensive things in his blog thing too, but he's still notable. These guys have a website that gets some readers, I don't know why we would get rid of the article. 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Maddox is an internet celebrity, and The Best Page in the Universe is an extremely famous website. "Conviction 365" is not an extremely famous website, and "Rise and Fall" are not internet celebrities. Therefore we keep the one and not the other, for the same reason that we keep George W. Bush but not Mrs Eleanor Thrunge of Battersea. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*Notice. All of the above comments with date stamp but no username are by User 69.254.230.101, also the author of the article in question. User 69.254.230.101 has voted at least twice in violation of policy. Let's put this one out its misery, shall we? Herostratus 04:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I voted once and wrote the last comment. I want to preserve my work, that's all. Since, evidentally, you're looking up IPs anyway, why don't you look up the one for this "*Keep It's a decent article, keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)" That wasn't me and there's no username on it either, I've voted once, according to policy. If you're going to accuse me, it helps if I've done what you accuse me of.

You may be correct. You have 12 edits her so far and I can't be bothered to sort out all of them. However, I note that you wrote "I read through it and I think it's a decent article." A bit disengenuos since you are the author of the article.Herostratus 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if that's been confusing, I've only voted once, just trying to perserve my work. I edited my vote to make it more clear. I didn't think I'd made that many edits, most were just to fix a typo or something. 11:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I believe you and I sincerly apologize. I have stricken out my previous notice. (In future, you should sign comments with four tildes, not five, to avoid confusion, though.) Herostratus 05:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (User's only edit)
  • Anonymous vote by 66.232.195.60. - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note to author: It's generally believed by Wikipedians that only websites with a significant number of visitors or some noticeable effect on society deserve an article. Since this has neither, it needs to be deleted. Still, this debate will stay open for 5 days. You can just go into the edit screen again and take a copy of the text for yourself to keep it preserved, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to put it. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity spam. Nandesuka 14:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-noteworthy. Ifnord 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the creator's mistaken impression, this website is not notable in the sense that The Best Page in the Universe is, and does not appear to have a large enough audience to belong in an encyclopedia. But feel free to come back when you've got a huge readership. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's a good website, I know some people who follow them (meaning Rise and Fall),and it's gained some national attention, so I'd say it's notable. 10:31 3 December 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by anon user 64.126.63.2
• Delete. It's an under-construction personal Web site with rants, like any of thousands of others. I've got a personal Web site with rants too; why doesn't it have a Wikipedia article? *Dan T.* 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I like the article because it has much meaning. Rise and Fall have gained some national attention, they ran one of the most popular Xangas ever. Keep the article. 8:13 21:08. 5 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 64.218.194.120 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nominator. Lots of apparent sock-puppets and random unsigned comments make me think unnotable and unwanted. Stifle 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article has gained much attention lately. I don't understand why you can't keep it. There's no other source writing about the website, and it does have some facts about the website. The website obviously gained enough attention to have an entry here, so leave it. User:EncycloMichael 11:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User has two edits: one to his user page, one here. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Author obviously spent much time on this article, it is well researched. Plus, consider the fact that the author put his social life on hold to write this article, so count this as a pity vote. User:Elminster41111 11:36, 5 December, 2005
  • User has three edits: one to his user page, two here. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is not MySpace. Until we start allowing any user to create an article detailing his internet "life", this shouldn't exist either. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 19:36
• Keep - The guy did write the article out of his own time. Why take that away from him? 10:21 5 December, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned vote by 69.247.164.49; user's only edit. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note that votes from anonymous users and newly created accounts which have only been created to influence the result of the vote will likely be disregarded. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why is that? Shouldn't the fact that so many people have come out in support of this show that there is indeed a fanbase for these people? If nothing else, they show that the website is notable so it shouldn't be deleted. User:VanillaX 10:20, 6 December 2005.

See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Chick Bowen 03:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - web vanity. - Longhair 08:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yup, this should get Deleted Eusebeus 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable web vanity. --Hurricane111 17:57, 8 December 2005 (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.