Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhotoshopContest.com

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoshopContest.com[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Advertisement, Spam and fails WP:NOT. I am also nominating the redirect, shown here. Real96 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And according to this, its also possible COI. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any need as to why this page should be deleted, I'm not exactly the best at encyclopedia worthy articles, but there is considerable references to warrant this page in staying here. Likewise, it merely informs about a photoshop contest website such as that of worth1000 or where it was originally inspired from fark.com Lord David 02:51, March 22 2007 (UTC)I inserted keep for this vote - Real96 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Terminill 11:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Terminill I am a little confused at how this could even be considered for speedy deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:37, March 21, 2007 Terminill (talk • contribs) Note: This user has very little contributions outside the AfD of this article. Real96 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why the number of one's contributions would have anything to do with consideration as to the validity of statements made that were all factual in nature with sources given?Terminill 11:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Sockpuppets for voting. Real96 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of blatant advertising...article is very similar to several other articles, such as Worth1000, the only real difference is that it is another photoshop contest site that plays by slightly different rules. Both sites have a rich history and considerable references. The entry ' photoshop contest ' already exist in the wiki and cites references to terms that are attributed to these photoshop contests. There are only three longstanding such sites, fark, Worth1k, and photoshopcontest.

These terms include 'chop, chopping' and 'cliche' as pertains to photo manipulation' , two terms from that article that would only refer to Worth1k if not for the existence of photoshopcontest.The term chopping, originated at Photoshopcontest.com as a matter of the sites users showing respect for the Adobe copyright, one that Wiki has ignored by actually keeping in place the entry "photoshopping", and "photoshopped" on entries such as [b3ta], which is in direct violation of Adobe's copyright policy, which can be linked from the 'photoshopping ' article's link section.I personally was a member at Worth1k and Photoshopcontest.com when the term 'chopping' came into existence, and it was by users such as myself that the term came into use and was spread among the photo manipulation community.If for some reason someone feels this is inaccurate, then why does the term 'chop, chopping' already exist in the article 'photoshop contest' without any validation for the use of the word or it's history as pertains to image manipulation?(the only source or reference for those terms can only come from the users of the contest sites themselves)The redirect [Photoshopcontest.com]. the request to have that redirect deleted, by Pious7, would this effect all of Wiki? Is your request actually to have one of the three top photo manipulation contest sites excluded from the entry [photoshop contest] ? The request by Mr. Z-man to have the entry deleted due to COI, I have read the COI, and see in no way how that could possibly apply here. You linked to a forum post by a PSC user that wrote this article, may I ask how that could possibly be relevent to this article?

Keep - TofutheGreat The COI arguement is questionable. Are you labeling this article as a conflict of interest simply because the originating author is a forum member of the site in question? Or because the author asked other forum members for assistance in refining the article? The article was not started or endorsed by the previous, or current, owner of the website in question. The originating author of the article makes no financial gain from any promotion of the site. If you feel that an article started by someone with an interest in the subject is a COI then you should nominate ALL article for deletion. After all why would someone start an article about something that didn't interest them? If it didn't interest them at any level then they wouldn't have looked into the subject at all in the first place. Also the notion of this article being deleted as an advertisement or spam would demand the deletion of articles on Worth1000, Fark, Photoshop software and any other tangible product or website. It's highly prejudicial to label and delete an article before it's had a chance to be "fleshed out" by contributors. From what I've read PSC began before Worth1000 and is therefore is just as worthy of notation as Worth1000. If you delete this article you must delete the others as a matter of integrity. Tofuthegreat 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Note: This user has very little contributions outside the AfD of this article. Real96 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if there are other articles similar to this then I would suggest AFD notices on them all. Darrenhusted 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I feel as though the article is a tv commercial, trying to get me to buy the site. PaddyM 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not advertising or conflict of interest, the references and sources don't establish notability -- the third-party references provided in the article are trivial. utcursch | talk 10:52, 25 March 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.