Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheGrappler (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 12 July 2006 (Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tango.info

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)

• Delete per nom. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 09:49, July 8, 2006
• Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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. Misplaced Pages does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Misplaced Pages to popularize them. - a page with 4000 visits a day certainly attracts attention already. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Delete - vanity, website run by article author, completely non-notable. pschemp | talk 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB and above. The JPS 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing encyclopedic to find inclusion here. --Bhadani 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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 and numbers of users. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages... 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)