Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box.net

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 Box.net and YouSendIt; no consensus for FileFront. The former articles were edited to (at least partly) address the concerns raised in the nomination, and this is reflected in the discussion. The same is not true of FileFront (see history). That, the relative scarcity of comments specifically addressing that article, and the fact that the articles became less comparable over time, suggest that the general consensus to keep does not extend to that article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box.net

We have a number of articles on practically identical file sharing services, that are part advertising, part trivia, and part identical descriptions of what they do and the forums and widgets they use. I don't think any of this belongs in an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not an index of websites. >Radiant< 10:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaupload.

Keep all, they meet notability guidelines. I can't quite see the reason you're nominating them. --Darksun 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they're part advertising, part trivia, and part identical to every single other file hosting service? >Radiant< 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So fix it - those arn't reasons for deletion --Darksun 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's false. Trivia falls foul of WP:NOT, and advertising is actually a reason for speedy deletion. >Radiant< 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They are definitely notabile. The articles need some cleanup, not deletion. Turlo Lomon 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got any sources for that? >Radiant< 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, let's see. Wall Stree Journal, Seattle Times, Gaming Today, BetaNews. Need more? Turlo Lomon 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing mention in a short newspaper article does not qualify. "Oh look, these guys from our town invented something that was invented before!" Fifteen minutes of fame isn't. Is there any actual scientific or socio-historical research into not just the phenomenon of file storing, but on actual distinction between the various sites? I thought not. >Radiant< 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YouSendIt, as it has third-party reliable sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is nothing wrong with the existence of such an article, just that [when I added the first spam tag] the article might as well have been a press release.
I have removed the list/section of "Partners and Integrations Using Box.net's API" and simply replace it with a one sentence section "API": Box.net has an API for developers, which is implemented via Vanilla XML.
I have also removed the "Features" section; this is not notable information; it is an advertisment of Box.net's features.
I have also re-worded the note about the free plan to this: Whilst it is primarily a paid-for web service, a limited free plan is available, however this is feature- and storage- limited and has adverts.
--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be largely an advertisement. If this company is notable (by which I mean that there is an unusual/interesting and verifiable fact about it), then I would support amending instead. Jakew 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but YouSendIt, which seems to have thin recognition. The other two as currently written are essentially advertisements and shows no evidence of encyclopedic merit under CSD A7. Very thin on sources too. -- nae'blis 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles should be merged/redirected to One-click hosting (save maybe rapidshare, which was the first one). humblefool® 00:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect sounds like a reasonable solution, actually. >Radiant< 09:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FileFront isn't a one click hosting service though. It's more like FilePlanet. Darksun 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article no longer sounds like an advertisement -- but I can understand concerns about notability (but inclusion in WSJ is interesting). --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone take a look at Files-Upload.com as well? Ollie990 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Yousendit and Box.net. Delete or find another proper merge target for FileFront which is a slightly different beast. In any case remove lots of spammy trivia. In general I don't think that anything is worth merging so a delete and redirect would be a fine solution in my view but I am not an expert in the field. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Files-Upload.com another AfD on a similar site (converted from speedy). Eluchil404 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does it meet notability guidlines, its the most visited generic file sharing/storage site on the net

Alexa Rankings compared to competitors Also, I've added a press section, anytime a newspaper mentioned online storage (Xdrive and others) Box is mentioned, if that doesn't show notability then nothing does. If there are advertisement concerns, edit it so its not written as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic5227 (talk • contribs)

Keep I believe it meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy cow (talk • contribs)
Holy moly, strong keep to the max - how many third party references does this site have? It passes WP:WEB with flying colors. Radiant's argument that "Wikipedia is not an index of websites" seems to run completely contradictory to the spirit of WP:WEB - whether something is part of a so called "index" of sites is irrelevant. If it passes our notability guidelines, it's fit for keeping. The Evil Spartan 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The exhaustive press section recently added (to me at least) confirms notability. As long as this article is kept clean of advertisement-bias, it's certainly notable. It was mentioned as a pioneering file storage app in a Personal Computer World "Web 2.0" feature. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YouSendIt. I've added re-written the article with some refs. Not sure about others. utcursch | talk 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these services, especially FileFront, are unquestionably notable. See the huge list of references in each article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:CRUFT isn't a reason for deletion. Mel sa ran 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I really don't see any compelling reason to delete. It's only normal for an article about a service provider website to describe that website's features; "advertising" is a bit of a stretch. Ideally some of these articles might have Criticism/Limitations/Issues sections, but that's a reason to add to the article, not delete it. Deleting these pages is just an enormous waste of time to the editors who have to recreate them with very similar content. If you want to remove a small, unobtrusive trivia section that belongs on the article's talk page. The similar structure between some of the file hosting articles is intentional as it helps with comparisons. The articles themselves are anything but identical. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - How are the listing these sites considered advertising? Would listing other popular websites like woot.com, ign.com, et al be considered good for deletion as well? No. These are legitimate websites that actually have the traffic for them to be worth putting up on Wikipedia. I say no. - XX55XX 18:01, 19 August 2007 (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.