Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADCPortal

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADCPortal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable website with a blatant conflict of interest Jac16888 ^Talk 15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really why it was a huge foothold in the direct connect world since its the official forum of the direct connect developers --Swetoast (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mind giving hints of what could be done instead of just putting articles up for deletion since ADCPortal is a huge deal in the direct connect world might not be worth anything too you but we ( the direct connect community ) feel that if we cant have article about our work or sites then whats the worth of sticking around on wikipedia.. --Swetoast (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MERCY. tedder (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps useful in its community, but no reliable sources to establish notability under WP:WEB or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fine remove it then but dont expect all that much contributions from the Direct Connect Developers in the future since we cant even write articles about our places of interest.. nice going hope that the last i have to deal with this in the future.. os. im not the person that has to beg so no begging its either love or leave it.. we work hard at our contributions of documentation just sad when a huge place like this seem to have narrow minded administrators but we will find other ways to get our sites out on the web in the future.--Swetoast (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry well just have to do without your that much contributions in the future since wikipedia doesnt have articles about everything in the universe just things which reliable sources have said something worthwhile about so thats just the way it is if your project has been the subject of significant notice why dont you tell us then maybe it would be notable your idea to find other ways to get your sites on the web is good you go do that EEng (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So i just started to write it after my second or third edit everyone swhooops in and starts taggin it for deletion while im in the process of writing it yeah great work guys your a real credit too wikipedia why not tag the whole wiki for deletion and be done with it since people cant get a fair chance writing their article to the end before being deleted. It might not be the largest news site but i see far worse articles here on wikipedia that holds less interest for anyone just look at the bittorrent articles plenty of them just wasting space --Swetoast (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I think this may be part of your misunderstanding: Wikipedia is not a "news site." Please take a look at WP:NOTABILITY. EEng (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the "news site" comment was aimed at my project not wikipedia, just wanna document my site history and the effect it has had on the direct connect community but that doesnt seem be happening anytime soon.. may i ask if this is standard policy since wikipedia is out and begging for donations should you guys be happy that people contributes to the site by actually writing articles that might enlighten people ? --Swetoast (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. But if you'll please click the link above you could answer these questions for yourself/ EEng (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone please translate Swetoast's comments into at least half-way grammatical English, preferably with punctuation, so that I have a chance of understanding them? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if your having a hard time keeping up stay out of it, comments like that doesn't really help in this discussion. So keep your trolling too yourself :) --Swetoast (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question was not trolling, but a perfectly genuine attempt to get help with understanding the points that you are making, so that I can evaluate them. It's very difficult for me to make sense your dialect, which seems far removed from the standard forms of written English normally used for discussion at English Wikipedia. You can't expect anyone to agree with what you are writing if you express it in such a way as to make it so difficult to understand. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't expect everyone to agree with what im doing but i would at least appreciate if they let me finish before they start tagging the article for deletion but it doesn't seem too make all that much sense in wrapping up the article i was working on since i feel that i cant catch a break so just go ahead and delete it and be done with it..--Swetoast (talk) 16:14, 19 December 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.