Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango.info (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 : Alexa rank is unlikely to mean anything much to our readers (yes, not everyone here edits) and the claim made is very shaky grounds for notability. The second-highest? Really? Because it's "316,670"? What, only one of the 316,669 sites above it are related to Tango? If you actually checked that, that's original research. Notability rests on non-trivial, independent, reliable external coverage, none of which have been demonstrated here. Both weight of opinion and weight of argument result in delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this article survived VfD last year, but I think this article should be wiped per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM, and for reminding me of that big fat bald orange bloke. die Baumfabrik 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 09:49, July 8, 2006
• Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This probably should not have been kept based on the previous VfD. Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site. Most often, when a person creates a new article describing his or her own work, it's because the work is not yet notable enough to have attracted anyone else's attention. Articles of this sort are known as vanity pages and are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them. - a page with 4000 visits a day certainly attracts attention already. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused here, Tobias; are you voting for the deletion of the article that you created which refers to your own website? --die Baumfabrik 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. No I am not voting for the deletion. The website is the second most used among tango dancers, so I don't really understand why you vote for deletion. It also has some unique feature which make it valuable for tango music collectors. I very often tried to bring tango people to edit in wikipedia, but most of them simply don't do it, sometimes because they don't like WP very much. I wrote the article myself, since I know the website quite good. I also started an article on todotango.com - nobody accuses me of vanity there. I also started List of tango music labels, List of tango singers, List of public domain tangos, Sociedad Argentina de Autores y Compositores de Música, I edited other tango related articles. I created lots of stubs for locations where tango people where born. I asked lot of people to create basic tango articles in other language wikipedias, since I don't speak romanian etc. I love tango. And if I am not sleeping I either dance it or develop tango.info or edit in wikipedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanity, website run by article author, completely non-notable. pschemp | talk 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:WEB and above. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing encyclopedic to find inclusion here. --Bhadani 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexa rank of 300,000 and no evidence of other notability outside the community of fans of tango. Therefore fails WP:WEB. Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you want en.wikipedia not to be something for tango fans? The value of 300k increases steadily, since the internet grows in numbers of hosts [1] and numbers of users. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of general interest. That means that we don't necessarily include everything we possibly COULD include, we filter. Read WP:WEB which, while not policy, is a good guideline in this area. This site fails the Alexa test. Last I checked it wasn't shown to be notable in other ways, although there are other methods than Alexa. Reviews in notable publications, for example. Please demonstrate the notability of this site with verifiable references and I'll change my opinion. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't believe this spam. I can't see that Tobias Conradi is acting in anything other than good faith. He has clearly been chucking just about every tango related resource he can at Wikipedia... his website happens to be, in fact, one of the most notable ones. And in fairness, we are talking about what seems pretty clearly to be the internet's second biggest resource on the entire tango genre - we're not talking about a "fansite" as if for a minor rock or pop group. Should we include the second biggest website on the classical genre, for instance? I think we should. It's also clearly not a commercially-led website driven to sell viewers as much as possible: in fact it appears to be an extremely useful database. Bear in mind that we do keep comparatively minor (in "it's small when you compare it to the whole internet" terms) statistical databases for sports, at least partly, I suspect, because they are used so often in our references. The article is pretty badly written, but it's certainly not written as an ad. It's very easy to get hot under the collar because the page has been written by the site's creator - it would have been a better idea to allow somebody else to do so - but given that (1) it's a useful database of encyclopedic information (which means we should brush over it less harshly than we would for a forum or sales-based site), (2) it seems notable within the tango community, (3) tango is not just a minor band, it's actually a major musical genre, and (4) there is sufficient material to write a substantial article without it verging anywhere near an advert, I think that there's a chance this should be given the benefit of the doubt and kept. TheGrappler 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chucking just about every tango related resource he can at Wikipedia", in the face of our policies about what is and isn't notable, and after they have been repeatedly explained to him, is not necessarily acting in good faith, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong KEEP. citing WP:SPAM is not warranted; just check back-links. Notability and verifiablity are established. I also strongly object to usage of alexa rank in the way done here. Tango dancers are pretty much narrow community in the world, as compared to pornography lovers. Therefore alexa must be reasonably used as a comparison tool for websites in the same topic. Clearly, #2 among tango websites is a feat of notability, contrary to most assertions made in this vote. `'mikka (t) 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mikka.--Pan Gerwazy 19:12, 14 July 2006 (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.