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 no consensus, default to keep. May I suggest that any future debate focus more closely on the article's merits under WP:WEB/WP:CORP, as in Quirex' contribution, rather than on WP:ILIKEIT-type arguments? Sandstein 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AboutUs.org[edit]

Lacks notability (and also lacks information value) orlady 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This discussion began, in a way, at User_talk:WikiPersonality. When the article was tagged for speedy deletion (and after the speedy deletion tag was removed), discussion continued at Talk:AboutUs.org. --orlady 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does indeed lack notability. Also seems to be website promotion and possibly spam. -WarthogDemon 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge some of its content into WHOIS. Topic fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) -- the news articles offered as evidence of notability are essentially press releases. I agree with WarthogDemon that article seems to be website promotion, although the article's advocate vehemently denies self-interest. --orlady 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promo Nashville Monkey 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep It might be considered by some to be a promo, but it is backed by credible external sources. TSO1D 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See example of how AboutUs.org is in use at an advanced and top rated Domain WhoIs Site Link goes to an Example pre-done of WhoIs for Wikipedia at DomainTools, (Name Intelligence). External link to show how AboutUs.org is now refernced as an additional info source on foremost domain WhoIs site. You can not only see the advanced searching info on Domain Tools which returns server info, domain info, cached image, and now includes AboutUs.org which allows another detailed information source. Don't be to quick to minimize a fun new controversial site. DomainTools is one of if not THE most respected whois sites on the net and webbuilders ALL know this!!! Don't let wikipedia be wikiignorant.. PLEASE visit before crying "Spam" it's just silly. Or go work for Encylcopedia Brittanica only printing old stale stuff.. Don't bring down Wiki with a snobbish attitude that only regognizes DMOZ and not the first true open direcory. Enough said.. I hope.. lol--162.83.180.170 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was that link supposed to demonstrate? Wikipedia doesn't include or exlude on how "useful" a website is. By the way "one of if not THE most respected whois sites on the net"? Both the blog posts linked were fairly critical... --Lijnema 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SPAM, our spam guidelines? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WarthogDemon. — ceejayoz ^talk 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (As I already threw in a Delete on the talk page) Possibly a check whether wikipersonality/162.83.180.170 are the same person, as 162.83.180.170 has several warnings and a temp block for his/her spamming? I'm assuming they are just off their shared weird syntax. It's worth noting that the strongest keeper of the article loads his/her remarks with borderline brownnosing like "articles like this are what makes wiki great!" and "don't be stale like EB!" along with his/her mentions of aboutus.org's apparent awesomeness, including assorted "please look again at the awesomeness, really, it's awesome, i promise" comments on people's talk pages. Cantras 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadn't heard of them until recently, but when I was looking up information about a certain website, they were rather useful. This is an instance of the "if I've heard of it, it's notable" test :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but you're pretty much quoting exactly what notability is not. --Lijnema 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "notability test" was slightly tounge-in-cheek; I'm aware of the rules, thank you. However, I still believe that the article needs to stay, even though I can't back it up with a WP:Whatever link. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought your assessment sounded a bit odd. ;) --Lijnema 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't like this site at all. It seems OK to describe other sites in a distasteful manner, without any proof. Besides, it's funded by sites with might expect positive reviews for their financial contribution. That just doesn't seems right. (This is more a vote from my heart, than from my head...) Christoffel 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Your reason for suggesting delete appears to be that you "don't like" the site that the article's about. What has that got to do with our deleting or keeping the article? Isn't this discussion supposed to be about whether or not we have enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article that complies with WP:NOT? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance..[edit]

That's what. 80M page views on the Alexa ranking tool indicate that it is now a popular site alternative to DMOZ. If something is relevant to a large group although not mainstream (such as webmasters) it should be given more thought. If you are not familiar with the topics of WhoIs, Alexa rankings, and the importance of a DMOZ listing, please read the articles on them right here on Wiki. The first popular alternative deserves a mention under the catagory web directories, and based on the welcome by some webmasters, and controversy of automated publishing by others, deserves an article.--162.83.180.170 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "deserving" an article. The only standard being applied is "has the topic received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent published sources." The best way to get an article kept is to argue that its contents are supported by good sourcing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Mostly a promo The Fox Man of Fire 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Some of this article meets WP:V, it has 2 veriable source (itself and business journal). The Portland business journal is the most reliable source, the other references range from blogs to specialized news sites. They are grey if they meet WP:RS expectations but the article is on the road to meet it. If it does pass WP:RS through an aggregation of the sites linking to it and the Portland article it does indeed meet criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Also arguments by 162.83.180.170 that wikipedia already has articles about similar sites is not valid according WP:SELF. I think that this article is actually verifiable enough to keep and it has an alexa ranking of 1,939 which is pretty high. The center networks post is just a link to the portland article but [[1]] is actual content about aboutus.org. That said the article could be improved. I'm voting weak keep because my keep vote relies on an aggregation of blogs plus that portland article to allow the page to meet the multiple non-trivial sources guidline of WP:WEB. Also I personally think aboutus.org is a terrible wiki and I'm glad this article has opinions about why it is controversal. --Quirex 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no less notable than others in here, and now verified.DGG 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Please read WP:INN. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --Quirex 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. WMMartin 16:41, 8 December 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.