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 a strong consensus to delete reinforced by badly behaved single-purpose accounts -- Y not? 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuniti[edit]

Yuniti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Yet another social networking website. Speedied for lack of sources. Now reposted with sources, but they are the subject's own website and a press release. Those aren't reliable independent sources. Author argues on article talk page that there are other similarly unsourced pages on Wikipedia; I'm going to be looking at those. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. NawlinWiki 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unremarkable spam ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources or not, this is a promotional article for another non-notable website. And those aren't independent sources. —Travis^talk 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a first networking site to allow validation of a user using public records and credit reports is quite notable. No other site has this, it is legitimate and something worth recording. Mateuscb 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Mateuscb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Find me a networking site which allows users to create their own chatrooms, and allows them to create a group for which they can charge membership. In fact, while you're at it, explain to me how the other 103 networking sites listed on Wikipedia (besides MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, and Friendster) are notable. Lastly, I copied the style and layout of the article from the MySpace article (notice I have a features category, much like them). I would love to have criticism, and would gladly welcome any changes to the article to meet the standards (in fact, please do). But there is no argument that Yuniti is worthy of mention on Wikipedia, even if the current mention needs work. — Marquinho 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Marquinho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong delete per NawlinWiki, non-notable, does not meet WP:WEB no reliable sources, etc. Leuko 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The social networking site hasn't reached a level of prominence like FaceBook that it has been mentioned non-trivially by reliable sources like newspapers and other mainstream media. (For example, my local newspaper had an article explaining how easy identity theft is on FaceBook, with details of an experiment done by an editor.) A single press release doesn't count as an independent secondary source, so it fails WP:WEB.--Alasdair 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no independent sources to which to attribute notability. When its unique features get noticed, we can write an article from secondary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All of you have listed valid points, and I cannot disagree with them. However, I again wanted to stress that the notable features I have listed are more notable and more published (even if only by a press release) than all but 4 of the 103 networking sites on Wikipedia. If this article is to be deleted due to "lack of independent sources" and "too much like an advertisement", than all but 4 (MySpace, Facebook, Orkut, and Friendster) of the other 103 networking sites on wikipedia deserve the same treatment. I am only looking for fairness here - Yuniti is no less notable nor valid than the other 99 networking sites on Wikipedia which I have never heard of. So either all 99 are deleted, or all 99 are kept. Additionally, the MySpace article should be taken down, as it is blatantly and clearly an advertisent, more so than the Yuniti article I have written. - Marquinho 08:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, The consensus seems to be deletion by reason that yuniti is not "big enough" and does not enough independant sources. I will totally agree with that the moment the current list of networking sites is narrowed down to the top five (There are currently over 100 sites). But as long as the list remains as it is, yuniti matches the same criteria as at least 50% of the current list. It's a matter of consistency. The rules should apply to all cases, not single out and discriminate against specific articles. If nothing else, I think it would make sense to have a very short article that basically states. Yuniti, first networking site to provide validation of its user. Becuase that is a fact --simple, neutral fact. Thanks. Mateuscb 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Mateuscb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Please see WP:ININ. Leuko 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just added another reference for you guys, an independent one. Hopefully it is sufficient. Also, I realize that the article is a bit biased and advertisement-like, and I would gladly accept, and would in fact appreciate, if it could be edited to not sound like this. - Marquinho 09:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Marquinho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable per WP:WEB. Only argument for remaining based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment hey guys, added another reference. This is getting a bit silly, at this point this article has more references than half of the articles on Wikipedia. Can one of the editors simply fix the article to be more wikipedia-friendly, and call this discussion over? - Marquinho 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Marquinho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Considering that these references are blog posts which both appeared after this AfD was started, I really don't think we can consider them WP:RS. And if we called the discussion over at this point, the consensus seems to be to delete the article. Leuko 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Leuko, you're correct, the articles were posted after this AfD was started. But this is about logic prevailing, not technicalities. If we're going to get that technical, then how about we delete the article, I create a new one with the new references, and we start over again, now with references. I may have jumped the gun a little, but this site is obviously being written about, and meets all of the criteria to be on wikipedia. - Marquinho 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you added the sources is immaterial. The reliability and verifiability of the sources is what is in question here. Blog posts, most websites, press releases, and the articles subject's web site typically don't meet those standards. —Travis^talk 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability and reliability is not in question here - Leuko's statement was Considering that these references are blog posts which both appeared after this AfD was started. Mashable.com is a perfectly reliable and verifiable source for news and info about networking sites, and Kristen Nicole being the lead author at mashable is both reliable and verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marquinho (talk • contribs).
      • Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. I now refer you to my argument back at the second bullet point of the discussion. There is still insufficient evidence of [[WP:|notability]] for the article's subject. From what I can discern, Yuniti is a small fish in a very large pond. Notability must already be established for a subject to meet Wikipedia guidelines. —Travis^talk 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Please don't forget to sign (~~~~) your posts.[reply]
        • First off, thank you for even taking this discussion this far, you could of deleted this article in the beginning and allowed for no discussion. Now going forth with your point on notability, we may be a small fish but as per wiki guidelines "... smaller organizations can be notable" WP:CORP. I still strongly believe that our new feature, allowing users to be validated, in which no networking site has remotely attempted to do, is worth mentioning. We are and will be the first networking site to implement such a feature. If you really believe that is not notable, then, I think we have reached an end to this great discussion. But in the contrary, then I say we have a valid reason to be on here. Even if our article is stripped down, and simply mentions this one notable difference.Mateuscb 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the MSN article is not really about this site, but rather about the verification technology, so I fail to see significant coverage Corpx 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Actually, the MSN article is about Yuniti being the first networking site to implement the ValidateID Technology, with the title being "Social Networking Site YUNiTi.com Licenses StrikeForce's ValidateID Identity Validation Solution" - not to mention that 1) There is no Wikipedia policy saying that an article has to be 100% about the subject, and 2) You'll have to be filtering a lot of other articles, including MySpace and Facebook, whose content is based on articles which were not directly about the article ("Social-networking sites a 'hotbed' for spyware" on MySpace: not about MySpace but social networking sites in general; "Secret Service questions student" on Facebook: not about facebook but about a student investigation, etc.) - Marquinho 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually the MSN link is not an article, but merely a re-print of a press release, and User:Marquinho refers to it as "our site," so there are WP:COI issues as well... Leuko 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : I really do have to ask something here - does ANY article on Wikipedia go through such intense scrutiny? I have a feeling that about 80% of the articles on Wikipedia would be instantly deleted if they went through half as much scrutiny as this article. - Marquinho 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, yes. See this AfD I participated in a while back for an example where notability was also being questioned. I agree that there are probably thousands of articles that should be deleted but, until they are noticed by someone that thinks that they should be deleted, they remain. For an example, look at this AfD. I'd also like to say that the guidelines vary depending on the category of the article. Biographies of living persons, for example, are probably the most heavily-scrutinized category around. Articles about schools, on the other hand, often remain with little sourcing. —Travis^talk 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Travis, I'm not sure the 2 articles you sent are a fair comparison - the first link about Anthony Chidiac, from what I can tell, was using e-mails as a reference? That's a bit ridiculous, as there is no way to verify that the e-mails were even really sent by the supposed writer. At the very least a press release that was noticed by social networking news sites is verifiable. I agree that e-mail is *not* a verifiable source, and if this Yuniti article was based on e-mails, I would gladly accept its deletion. As for the D&D Characters, despite their encyclopedic value, if we're going on the basis that articles have no notability, then I really don't think it can be compared to this article. Notability means things that set this article apart from all others like it, correct? I have already listed 2-3 things which set this site apart from all other networking sites on Wikipedia, things it has which no other does. I see no such examples listed in the D&D AfD. - Marquinho 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You asked if "ANY article on Wikipedia go through such intense scrutiny." I answered in the affirmative and provided a link to an AfD discussion which, in my opinion, demonstrates a high level of scrutiny. The second AfD link was in response to your "about 80% of the articles on Wikipedia would be instantly deleted" comment. Other than that, I was making no comparison to this article. Please don't use my comments out of context. —Travis^talk 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps my emphasis was on the wrong word. My question was "any article on Wikipedia go through such INTENSE SCRUTINY." Deleting an article due to having references that cannot be validated (e-mail), or deleting it because it is not notable (non-main characters in a computer game) is, in my humble opinion, not scrutiny. These are requirements to be a Wikipedia article, and if not met, should result in deletion. By scrutiny I meant that this article has 2 valid 3rd-party references, a press release, is balanced, has been cleaned up as much as possible per the demands of the editors, has 2 people giving a [logical and valid] counter-argument for every delete point made. And even so reasons which are not even part of the Wikipedia requirements for an article are listed as deletion reasons (such as: the references are not valid ENOUGH, the notability is not notable ENOUGH). - Marquinho 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first posters said it all. Spam "There are other pages as bad as mine" is not a justification. MarkinBoston 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "there are other pages as bad as mine" has never been my argument. My argument has simply been that this article is in no way, shape, or form any LESS valid than any other article on Wikipedia. My argument has simply been that if the basis for deleting this article is "Not valid enough sources", "Not Notable", and "Spam", then we may as well delete the entries for MySpace and Facebook as well, as those articles have the same type of references, notability, and spam-likeness as this article. And I know what your next argument will be - "But everyone knows what MySpace/Facebook is". But nowhere in the Wikipedia requirements for an article does it state that it must be about a subject everyone knows about. - Marquinho 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With respect, you don't know what my next argument is. My point, which I already stated and will repeat, is that it doesn't matter whether another page has, or will be deleted. We are discussing this page only. If this page does not pass muster, then it should be deleted. When the time comes, we can consider other pages. My mom taught me a long time ago - just because Johnny's mom lets him do it, that doesn't make it right :) MarkinBoston 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, my argument is not "delete this page and all the other pages like it", which would emcompass 80% of pages on Wikipedia. This is obviously ridiculous, because it would mean that a lot of useful sources on Wikipedia would be removed, even if they are not "notable ENOUGH" nor "valid ENOUGH" by some peoples' standards. Rest assured that if we started a discussion such as this for MySpace, we would have all the people who hate MySpace (which there are a lot of, and on Wikipedia, probably more so than those who like it) voting to delete the article based on its spam-ness - more so than people voting to keep it. My argument is simply that these articles, which have NOT been deleted, are equally as valid (or invalid), and if there is validity to keep them (which I believe there is), then there is validity in keeping this article (which I obviously believe there is). The reason for my comparison is simply to make a logical argument - I cannot make an argument that "MySpace is more notable", or "MySpace References are more valid", because who am I to say what is more notable or more valid? - Marquinho 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like we came back full circle with this discussion. We are getting in a gray area where it's starting to become more opinion than strict policy. So, given our current situation, here is my thought. What steps must we accomplish in order to get this through? We need something quantifiable (X numbers of articles, X number of enrolled users, etc…) -- goals that can be met as, opposed to an opinion of what is notable or not. That way we can leave the "other articles do this or that" behind. If we have specific guidelines, we will go after these measures to ensure the article goes through. Again thank you for giving your time and thought on this subject.Mateuscb 06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mateus and Marcos: I think it's all been said. When all of the "delete" comments are boiled down, you are still left with the question of notability. With all due respect, the argument, "we may as well delete the entries for MySpace and Facebook as well," is a red herring. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't heard of MySpace and/or Facebook. MySpace, in particular, has received massive amounts of press coverage. Notability of those two sites is unquestionable. Except for the websites listed as references in the article, it appears that Yuniti has received no press coverage. Notability is very much in question. Now, there are thousands of articles with very obscure subjects, but obscurity doesn't imply non-notability. Conversely, just because "everyone has heard about" something doesn't automatically grant notability. I could go on, but again, I think it's all been said.

No offense, but my original opinion remains: Yuniti is not a notable website. Not yet, at least. If the situation changes, an article will be welcome. —Travis^talk 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • No offense taken whatsoever. I understand your points and argument, I simply strongly disagree with them. I am being told that having 2, even 3 independent sources doesn't matter. What matters is whether the article being written is about something which is well-known: be it well-known in it of itself, or written by a "popular source", in essence notability and 3rd party reference material isn't sufficient. An article must be about a "popular enough" subject to be Wikipedia-worthy, which in essence has made Wikipedia an article-popularity contest instead of an information database. I understand that you continue to use the word "notable", but I think you are using the wrong word. Notable means "prominent, important, or distinguished". The word which you continue to describe is popularity, and if that is your argument, then I concede, because you are correct, yuniti is not popular enough. Notable, yes. But not popular. - Marquinho 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't intend for my comment to be misleading in that way and I'll try to be more specific in the future. I wasn't arguing, and don't believe, that notability = popularity. Many people/things/events that receive a lot of press aren't notable. For example, wildfires in the Western United States are always heavily covered, but they don't each deserve an article. Now, back to your point. If Yuniti is prominent, important, or distinguished, I fail to see it. Am I missing something? I have read each of the references listed in the article and can still find no evidence of prominence, importance, or distinction. The Businesswire article is a press release from StrikeForce Technologies about the technology licensed to Yuniti. That is not an independent source. The mashable.com article, the only reference that sounds independent, is as much about StrikeForce as Yuniti. It seems to argue against your case by saying, "…the validation option isn’t required." The mention on killerstartups.com also goes against your case by equating Yuniti's features to those of MySpace and Facebook and by failing to mention the one thing that supposedly sets Yuniti apart from the others. In any case, it is only a blog post. The fourth reference is Yuniti's "About" page. I'm sorry, but I can find nothing to prove that Yuniti is prominent, important, distinguished, or otherwise notable. —Travis^talk 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • The Mashable.com article begins with "Yuniti, an online social network, is among the first to sign on ValidationID", thus distinguishing Yuniti from all other networking sites. The article goes on to say "Communities like MySpace are continually being pressured to incorporate an identification validation system or age verification system of some kind", thus establishing the importance of this feature that only Yuniti has. Further research on Wikipedia and the web turns up no other networking site that has implemented ValidateID, completely distinguishing Yuniti from all other sites of its kind. Secondly, your comment on killerstartup only goes on to distinguish Yuniti - it is a site with "best of both worlds", setting Yuniti apart from not only MySpace and Facebook (because each has things missing which Yuniti has), but in turn establishing its notability if it has the best of both. Your third argument about it "only being a blog post" only goes on to enforce your popularity point, not notability. Had this article been written by "The New York Times", a more popular source, we would not even be having this argument. My last reference, the about page - well, I can't argue with you there. I'll again make my point that the MySpace article uses e-mails and the MySpace about page as a reference, as does Facebook, and that I wrote this article using those as a model. But I know how much that argument is disliked (although valid), and so my suggestion is to simply remove it as a reference from the Yuniti artile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

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.