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 delete. The !votes that comply with policy are almsot entirely one-sided. Consensus is that this is not notable enough for an article. Courcelles 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atpic[edit]

Atpic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable photo sharing site. I am unable to find independent and verifiable, third party coverage of this site. Alexa rank is over 600k (admittedly a poor metric in determining notability though). VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not for promoting any organisation or individual. It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that my delete is based on the article and not the product or service. I don't use photosharing (except for avatar hosting elsewhere) and have no opinion on the greatness or otherwise of Atpic. It is not shown to comply with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. You can do something about that. Read the policies I've mentioned, and get the proof that it is notable. Your opinion doesn't count. Proof does. See WP:V. You can save the article (and have a moment of glory), but it won't be by posts like those so far made in support. It'll be by work. Peridon (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At last... You could do to get some independent sources that we here can check. Books are valid sources, but are somewhat suspect to those of us who frequent AfD if nothing else is around.... You've usually got about a week on AfD. The refs to folksonomies (or whatever...) are OK to have, but you must show Atpic's notability. Atpic site is no good as a ref, and forums and blogs are not much good - but the existence of an Atpic specific forum might help. Non-PR stuff is needed - independent reviews are quite good. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too modified the Atpic page with an extra book reference: Digital Photography for Next to Nothing: Free and Low Cost Hardware and Software to Help You Shoot Like a Pro, John Lewell (Author) Excerpt - page 281: " ... FREE, supported by other income. Atpic A very small site, developed and maintained in France mostly by Alex Madon, Atpic, shown in Figure 30.1, is FREE ... " Paperback: 384 pages Publisher: John Wiley & Sons (14 May 2010) Language English ISBN 978-0470687260 Product Dimensions: 23.1 x 18.5 x 2.5 cm Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 132,777 in Books. Atpic is mentioned as one of the best (should I say notable?) free photo sharing sites at Part VII: Sharing & Publishing your work, Chapter 30: FREE Online Photo-Sharing Sites, Selected FREE Online Photo-Sharing Sites. Getting the excerpt is easy: just search for Atpic on amazon. I attached a screen shot also at: http://pic.atpic.com/2019119 for those who have doubts. John Wiley & Sons is generally seen as a very serious publisher so I hope that this DOES count for notability. Alexmadon (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are too few to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline. And they are trivial mentions, you need sources that focus on the subject, not just listing Atpic among a bunch of other photosharing sites.--hkr Laozi speak 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please read my posts above? (This applies to the two posters above this.) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Peridon (talk)
I guess that what Vienuolis means is that wikipedia ought to mention not only the most notable sites but also the alternatives. Like for the tag links on the wikipedia page, there is a power law here too: the most popular photo sharing site (or whatever subject specific site), will take 90% of the market share, then the next most important will take say 6% of the market share, etc... so the real question is where to cut the long tail? To me, the site is notable enough to have its wikipedia page.
To you, perhaps. But on Wikipedia, all articles have to follow the notability guideline. No exceptions. And this article does not meet any of the required criteria.--hkr Laozi speak 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no exceptions? Then you will need to remove most of the wikipedia. Other photo sharing sites listed in the wikipedia do not have more books or article links to prove notability than atpic, see: BlueMelon, Woophy, Piczo for instance. Most of them already went through AfD and were kept. THIS ARTICLE too went through AfD and was kept but somebody deleted the previous talk. Too bad. This page should be named AfD 2nd nomination and should include the first debate.Alexmadon (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the "other stuff exists" argument is a weak one, for a very simple reason: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article."--hkr Laozi speak 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woodyrox: the whole process is described at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. The relevance of the deletion of a page is generally discussed during one week, or more if no clear decision can be made after one week of debate. Thanks Alexmadon (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The final decision is made by a closing admin, someone who hasn't taked part in the discussion but who reads through the page here (and sometimes I feel very sorry for the unfortunate admin. I don't know if they choose or are chosen. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nit pick: you can't have one of sole alternatives - sole means the only one and there are no others. We don't count the Google scores as such - it's what comes up that's searched through for sources meeting WP:RS. If you all really want to save this article, READ the policy and put the references in. Don't just waffle on about how good it is - PROVE IT. We aren't trying to get this deleted for fun. It's because there's no indication it meets OUR requirements for articles. I'd be happy enough to see it survive - with the necessary additions... Peridon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon, with the help of google, I added to the references section three papers mentioning Atpic, what do you think? They are not paper about Atpic but they mention Atpic as an example in their paper. I'd say that this shows somehow the notability of Atpic.Alexmadon (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A French research paper about folksonomies gives Atpic and Flickr as photo sharing sites examples, IC2010 Ingenierie des connaissances, Nimes, France (2010) "Les motifs sequentiels au service de la structuration des folksonomies", Sandra Bringay, Maguelonne Teisseire, Julien Gomila, Damien Hoffschir and Thibault Vicaire. A copy can be retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/77/32/PDF/IC_2010_VF.pdf
  • A UK paper cites (page 270) Flickr, Picassa and Atpic as social photo sharing networks Journal of Media Practice Volume 10 Number 2&3, p267-272, Intelect 2009 'The changing flux in the photograph at the precipice of change: the phototrix and the death of the photograph', Yon Marsh, North East Surrey College of Technology, UK. A copy can be retrieved from: http://www.yonmarsh.org.uk/phototrix/Phototrix.pdf
  • A Greek research paper writes about photo sharing sites "such as Atpic, Flickr, Imageshack, ipernity, Jalbum,. Photobucket, Piczo.com, Picasa, SmugMug, Webshots, and. Zooomr." in An Automatic Multi-Agent Web Image and Associated Keywords Retrieval System Papadakis, N. Ntalianis, K. Doulamis, A. Stamoulis, G. Comput. & Commun. Eng. Dept., Univ. of Thessaly, Volos, Greece Systems, Signals and Image Processing, 2009. IWSSIP 2009. 16th International Conference on Issue Date: 18-20 June 2009 On page(s): 1 - 4 Location: Chalkida Print ISBN: 978-1-4244-4530-1 INSPEC Accession Number: 11023559 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/IWSSIP.2009.5367695 Date of Current Version: 28 December 2009 A copy can be retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5367684/5367685/05367695.pdf?arnumber=5367695
  • Note that these are just trivial sources and the WP:N guideline requires sources that focus on the subject of the article. A brief mention among a long list of photosharing sites does not satisfy WP:N.--hkr Laozi speak 12:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. LL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.237.180 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they need to be referenced. Instead of telling us regulars how Wikipedia works, why not read the policies WP:GNG and WP:RS and then discuss it - or even better, get into gear and FIND the references. It's not up to US - see WP:BURDEN. Sorry if this seems like biting - I do get tired of people not taking any notice when they're told. This doesn't apply to Woodyrox etc who are trying.Peridon (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Currently, despite there being a numerically high figure of keep votes, the logic for keeping is absent in most, leave two of them. Assuming good faith on the ips, I have no issues in relisting this AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:06, 30 October 2010 (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.
More