Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyLovingMemory.com

MyLovingMemory.com

Vanispamcruftisement of the first water. Starts with the site name intercapped as a web link (sets the old spam radar off straight away!) and finishes by asserting copyright incompatible with GFDL. What is between the link and the copyrigth statement is advertorial. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per most obvious reasons ever. Obli (Talk) 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam --Bachrach44 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP! Noob Xanthor 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Xanthor

I am the author of that article and I don't know what the problem is. You don't like that I've introduced the site and what its trying to do? Would you like 3 paragaphs of garbage explanation? I am only quoting my source of those slogans by providing the link to the page I got them from.

As for the copyright of the slogans I was with the understanding that by sharing that I was allowed to share them here provided I credited the author?

If you dont like the article I would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it. But I do wonder if I'll actually get any.

EDIT: I have looked at a few other articles and I think I see what you guys want it to be more like. I will rewrite it this evening. BUT DONT YOU DARE DELETE IT! Xanthor 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

• • You wouldn't happen to be the author of the website, now would you? ;) Obli (Talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Who else would endure this? ;) Xanthor 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor
• Delete as per nom. Please don't threaten other users. Dustimagic 22:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable website. Obina 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:WEB guidline of notability standards: Alexa rating of 1.2 million. Google says no incoming weblinks, and the webpage is only mentioned by directory lists. In addition, appears to be a variant copycat of the Million Dollar Homepage, by selling blocks of pixels to upload photos onto. Good idea, but not to the standard of Wikipedia inclusion. Delete. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website, the claims of copyright are problematic as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A special thank you to --Bachrach44 for sharing with me the guidelines found at [WP:WEB]

Given these guidelines it would seem that any webpage that has not already achieved fame would not meet the criteria for inclusion.

My only problem with this, and I understand its about keeping the Wiki up to quality standards, is that in fact the mylovingmemory.com website is the first to allow the general public to upload photos to create a digital collage. Although it does share a similarity to the milliondollarhomepage in the way it offers pixels for photos - the two sites are nothing alike. The milliondollarhomepage does not offer any content, only links. The Mylovingmemory website is the first to approach digital art collages in this manner and in fact their efforts are a historic moment and should be recognized.

Addditionally, the guidelines do not speak to uniqueness of content or public interactivity. Most "collage art" is done by a single artist on a static canvas. This site is creating digital collages by allowing public interaction on a changing canvas.

In short, I did not come here to post about "yet another nuke site" and attempt to include something as common as that. This website is unique. It is the only one I know of that does it and it is doing it as a project in philanthrophy. Exceptions should be made. Xanthor 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

• Delete per nom. rodii 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the first place where website references should appear. I wish you well with your endeavour. Stifle 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. vanity advertising. Atrian 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To be fair to the page creator I checked out the promise to rewrite. Not even the copyright tag has been removed. The article states that the site was created last month. I wish this project well and suggest joining webrings. Regards, Durova 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• PAGE REVISED. Thanks Durova, but it is still my "night" :-) It still needs a bit more work but it has been revised. Xanthor 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

Comment. I have reviewed the new page. The basis for my delete is unchanged. The issue is not the text. The Web site is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for promoting new things. I, too, wish this web site success so it may be here in several years time.Obina 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment As per Obina the page is still largely advertising. Delete Atrian 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP it is not advertising. I sell advertising for a living - thats not it. Obina said its not the text .. so to point to advertising and then refer to what Obina said makes no sense. You are all very discouraging and I will spend no more time about this except to send an email to this websites founder.

The internets version of a time capsule wants accepted by the internets version of an encylopeida. Its that simple.