English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/ImageShack (2nd 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 keep. This seems like one of those classic examples of an AfD spurring people to chase up references etc. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ImageShack

Subject does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP Afed 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete, really not that significant in the grand scheme of things on the Internet. As per nomination. ContivityGoddess 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its the third highest ranked image host on the internet currently ranked 52nd highest traffic site on the internet. How is that not significant in the grand scheme of things?--Crossmr 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete, agreed, there's no encyclopaedic notability demonstrated as WP:WEB or WP:CORP requires, and the site isn't significant enough to have any. --Jacj 18:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete; no independent sources per WP:ATT. —Psychonaut 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Independent sources have now been added.~~--Crossmr 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep; here is the previous deletion nominmation: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ImageShack, although it was mistaken, for what it's worth. Looking at the criterion, I think the original nomination correctly points out that it doesn't fit the criterion. I haven't worked with wikipedia closely enough to know about these policies, but it seems common sense for anyone familiar with using image hosts that imageshack is by far one of the biggest out there. It's obviously not going to be covered in news publications - what kind of mainstream publication writes a story on image hosts, and bare-bones image hosts (unlike flickr) at that? The lack of media coverage doesn't mean imageshack isn't big and widely used, take a look at Alexa: [[1]], currently #64 website worldwide, and the third largest image host behind flickr and photobucket. Also, for what it's worth, 36 million google hits vs. 44 million for photobucket. Tejastheory 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how the article survived the first nomination, if the participants were aware of the policies. I assume they were different back then, or enforced differently. I don't deny that ImageShack is well known and widely used, but that by itself doesn't fulfill the criteria. Neither does Alexa, which merely provides a short summary of what the site is and statistics of how many users of Alexa's software visit the site. --Afed 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the criteria that you linked to, I would have to agree that imageshack probably doesn't fufill those, but I'm not all that familiar with wikipedia notability policies. Surely, even without 'formal' media source, imageshack is one of the most widely well-known image hosts, and certainly one of the most top-trafficked - doesn't that count for something? Tejastheory 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a non-trivial source to reference in the article, or some other thing that would meet one of the guidelines, that would help a lot. I didn't see anything before I AfDed --Afed 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete, crappy web-cruft. -incog 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep are you kidding? This is notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not kidding, and I believe that this article is not notable according to WP:WEB and WP:CORP. The article cites no primary sources and so far no one has come up with any. --Afed 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citations calls for tagging the article with cleanup tags, not for deleting the entire article. Deletion for a lack of citations only is supposed to occur when an article's subject fails to meet WP:N (and thus it is highly doubtful that citations could ever be found for a non-notable subject). This article's subject is so notable that I'm sure citations could be found. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep clearly notable. 30 seconds of googling turns up refs like this one. - Peregrine Fisher 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Something about that site rubs me the wrong way. It looks suspiciously like a paid blogging service. Did you read some of their other stuff? --Afed 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "30 seconds of googling" test is that Google can't distinguish between a genuine, notable weblog and a "news" site that just regurgitates press releases. --Jacj 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep one of most used services on the internet Crazybacon 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced weasel phrase detected. --Jacj 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the resources do the research now, but I was kind of under the impression this was a famous website - based on a gut feeling that you see lots of references to it on many web forums. A bit surprised to see it here. I should take a look at this soon. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly a notable site as its use is seen across a wide variety of popular sites. As well, two reliable sources have been provided to show coverage and that satisfies WP:WEB.--Crossmr 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of your sources are highly questionable, due to their own relative obscurity and the fact that the cited stories read like press releases. I believe that Mashable exists purely for publishing "press release" materal submitted by the owners of sites themselves. That would essentially be a self published source. Further, if it is indeed a legitimate blog, then it is also not a reliable source according to WP:RS. --Afed 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As it was pointed out, while self-published its allowed as long as the writer is a well known journalist which is the case since the author is a journalist for guardian.co.uk, so yes its quite reliable in that case. After some looking, you might be write about that particular article on Biosmagazine. Their top articles don't look like press releases as there is some editorializing in them, and it doesn't appear to be a blog, but in this case, the article is actually a mash up of several press releases. So while the content is reliable, that particular source can't be used to establish notability. Though there is still a point of common sense here, and realization that notability guidelines are not policy, and some critical thinking should reveal that while there isn't a lot of independent coverage it is the 52nd highest traffic website on the internet and the third largest image hoster. Its notable by virtue of its use.--Crossmr 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment why was the latest reference added reverted? - Peregrine Fisher 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, the user made a mistake, see my talk page. I reverted it back. - Peregrine Fisher 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep; this is not a minor site; it has articles in three other languages and is used regularly according to Whatlinkshere. John Vandenberg 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Imageshack is very much used on the internet, deserves an encyclopedic entry. The article being better or worse I won't discuss, if it needs to be better written then let it be reedited. Erasing this article doesn't make Wikipedia better. --Michael Retriever 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Right now, the article is only an entry that belongs in an "internet guide", not an encyclopedic article. Popularity among the Internet community does not make a subject notable by itself, although this is understandably hard for Wikipedia editors to step back and realise, since most of us are familiar with that kind of thing. The article should be deleted because it will never get better; there are no facts to document that will show Imageshack having historical significants or major achievements (notwithstanding their glowing press releases published on artificial blogs). --Afed 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an internet encyclopedia so popularity among internet users does make it notable. This website also isn't something that is mildly popular either, its within the top 100 websites on the internet. There are probably tens of thousands or more of articles on wikipedia which have no historical significance, I was unaware that that was a requirement, nor are major achievements. You've already admitted its a popular website. We also know how popular a website it is. Your proposal for deletion was based on the fact that you didn't think it was notable or in other words not popular or well known. In the context of people who would be online and reading this encyclopedia, imageshack is popular and notable.--Crossmr 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. There's no relevence to Wikipedia, or anything that makes it notable on its own. --Afed 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think sheer use makes it notable. Being in the top 100 of trafficked sites and being the third largest image host in the world means that there are millions of users that engage in its services or view images that it hosts. ImageShack is not this big, but imagine if there was a single website that hosted the majority of all image content on the web. Sure it may not have social networking features or garner press coverage (because it's a mundane thing), but that fact alone makes it notable and relevant. Tejastheory 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Notable --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep, famous isn't strong a strong enough term to describe this site. If this doesn't meet WP:WEB then the guideline is all but useless and should be deleted rather than this article. RFerreira 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
keep - if this article is deleted so should many others. This isn't like some articles that have been deleted like fan sites and forum sites which are worthy of deletion. This is a site used by many countries and the article is actually relatively interesting(!). Besides, if you delete it, other users will simply keep recreating it - should definitely stay IMO. GillsMan 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, many other articles should also be deleted, if they are essentially advertisments. I will be getting to them. --Afed 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any article about any subject could be considered an advertisement for it. If you think it reads like an advert thats a reason to clean it up, not deletion. You nominated it because you said it wasn't notable, then admitted it was notable. Now the reasons you've given since then have all been reasons for cleanup, not deletion. This article has also never, to my knowledge, been tagged with a good-faith advert tag. Your tagging it now would only look like you were trying to make your case for deletion. You raised a concern of sources above and the article now has 4.--Crossmr 23:18, 2 March 2007 (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.