393:
is again not up for debate: the e-mails are there for anyone to see. David Blade III is not registered in New York -- that is a statement made by the NY Courts. That Craig
Brittain owns both the IsAnybodyDown? site and Takedown Hammer is not a fact awaiting confirmation by the mainstream media -- it is reflected in the site registration record, as pointed out by Marc Randazza, Ken White, and anyone else who can type into the search query of whois.com. That the words "Takedown Lawyer" and "David Blade III" were removed from IsAnybodyDown only after allegations of fraud were raised is not from an "unreliable" source, it is, again, a historical fact - there for anyone to see. Nobody editing this article drew a direct causal relationship between the suspicion and the removal, but the fact is, it happened. That women are harassed because of the site does not need to be confirmed by CNN, because you can simply go to the site and see it for yourself.
621:), but...its hard to tell how controlled either are from an editorial standpoint. The link to Velvet provided by the IP editor contains only images obtained from the site and contains a link to the site, barely a fleeting mention. The meat of the post is related to the aforementioned Anna Walters issue, not IsAnybodyDown. If kept, there may be some cleanup work needed to ensure we don't run into POV issues and the like (I'm guessing this would reduce the article to a stub, however, based on its current state).
349:
case, as well as Velvet in
Hungary - a top Hungarian news source) however, that is not even listed in this article. In this form, the website is not notable (because most of the negative sources are dictating the edits from their own non-notable websites rather than attempting to meet neutral POV). Additionally, this should really be a speedy delete and the article should already be gone, because the primary edits were made by vandals, engaging in vandalism and nonsense. Here's a list of the sources examined:
415:
that the subject site is mentioned, but it's a little hard to tell if it's a 1-2 paragraph mention in an article about the larger situation, or an actual article on the IAD website. I'll try to get someone who can get past the language barrier to give it a look. But even if it serves, it's still not enough, by itself.
566:. The current sources on the page do not meet any of these three. Furthermore, the supposed 'sources' are really just attempts at squatting on a potentially notable website for their own ends - making references to people and websites who will probably never meet the three core editing principles of Knowledge (XXG).
509:(It's non-english. That's why you didn't find it). The original articles from WRIC and WTVR included references to Is Anybody Down but have since been removed. Either way, this entire article needs to be re-written from a neutral POV if it is to stand (with no references to biased non-neutral blogs).
445:
which seems to have an editorial staff and a publisher and may thus be a little more reliable than the average self-published blog, but probably not sufficiently so). Thus a quest for the
Richmond, Virginia sources is rather difficult. A web search just produced lots of links to Anna Walters pictures
580:
I'm afraid that trying to apply
Knowledge (XXG)'s "core editing principals" to our sources exhibits a misunderstanding of what Knowledge (XXG) does and how it uses sources. That Knowledge (XXG) editing should be NPOV does not require that it only use NPOV sources, and our range of acceptable sources
414:
The GQ article is a help towards notability, but is not really enough by itself. Notability generally requires multiple reliable sources. We have one, maybe. I say maybe because, given the language difference, it's a little hard to tell. Is it an actual article, or just a blog/column? I can see
392:
The GQ source establishes the website's noteworthiness. The reliability argument is a red herring. The statement that Marc
Randazza is asking plaintiffs to come forward is reliable because those are his own words. Yet, it was removed. That Craig Brittain and David Blade III share the same IP address
205:
Non-notable website. The website has come under heavy criticism in recent days from a number of blogs. The current web page is sourced primarily from these critical blogs. But, despite the blog-war ongoing, and the website getting a lot of negative attention across the web, there are no reliable
418:
What is interesting to me is the two items mentioned by the IP above. If one or both of the mentioned articles could be tracked down, it's possible that we might have our reliable sources. I'm not a good internet hunter myself, so I'll leave the searching for those two to others. But I'm open to
348:
The sources listed are not notable and are being used with many weasel words, i.e. non-notable sources making vanity edits on their own behalf/agenda. There are several legitimate sources which have linked to this website (mainstream local
Richmond, Virginia news covering the Anna Michelle Walters
787:
I've been reading about this ongoing saga on
Techdirt. I would say that it is notable now. The person who runs the site has deleted the entire content of this page and replaced it with a legal notice, so even he agrees that the subject is notable. Albeit in the wrong way, but if it's so important
708:
The issue is not whether it may become notable at some unknown point in the future, but whether or not the site is notable *now*. At the point in time when the more notable media sources jump into this, it can be revisited. For now, IMHO it's simply not (yet) notable. -
272:
I would not generally consider
Techdirt a reliable source. It's another blog. A widely read blog, that I follow regularly myself, but still a blog. No real editorial control to make it up to the level of RS. Ars Technica is a whole different matter... -
553:
The article uses an image with the Is
Anybody Down watermark and references the website as a link. A link from an established, reliable source is infinitely more valuable than sources which do not meet any of wikipedia's 3 core editing principles.
296:
I did some searching and couldn't find anything in reliable sources that amounted to "significant" coverage. There certainly are a lot of bloggers talking about them, but not the reliable sources we'd need to keep the article.
616:
The only two sources that I wouldn't immediately write off are the GQ post (which appears to be a blog-like section of the site) and the post on
Jezebel...one might make an argument for those being passable as reliable (see
581:
is plenty broad. That Knowledge (XXG) is not for original research does not mean that it cannot reference such research. I can point to exactly one site which holds Knowledge (XXG)'s core principals, and it is one that
174:
685:
the ongoing issue is in its early days (which is to say that either more 3rd party references will arrive soon, or the topic can be reconsidered in a month or two) and in general has a lot in common with
411:
What you call a red herring, Knowledge (XXG) calls one of it's core policies. I'm sorry, but reliability of sources is essential around here. And blogs are (almost) never considered reliable sources.
331:
Concur with the above, with the addition that if the conflict eventually becomes covered enough to the point where it's notable, there's no reason the page can't be recreated after some discussion.
450:
exists, but a search on that website for "Is Anybody Down" or "IsAnybodyDown" came up empty. Unless the IP editor can himself provide links to those sources, I don't think we can find them.
314:
I'm one of the bloggers covering this. While I have (of course) great faith in my own writing and those of the other blogs, this doesn't meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for notability. --
209:
On top of all of this, the site's owner is now attempting to scrub the page. But that all aside, we still have a small-time website that IMHO simply does not meet the notability criteria.
127:
826:
There is now another international source (Huffington Post Italy) that also names the site's founders. Also added an article today from Daily Dot. 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
466:
The IP editor (75.70.221.14) isn't just related to the site, he is the owner of the site. He has also previously engaged in edit warring and vandalised Knowledge (XXG) articles.
666:, which was created 4 November, the day before this AfD went up. One or the other should be deleted or they both should have a histmerge or whatever is deemed appropriate.
168:
639:
482:
Confirmed. This e-mail exchange, written up by Marc Randazza on Wednesday, shows the same IP address used by the IP editor, Craig Brittain, and the "Takedown Lawyer":
441:
I tried to hunt down the sources mentioned by the IP editor (who, by the way, is probably related to IsAnybodyDown). Google News didn't find anything (except
483:
134:
687:
539:
Maybe my Hungarian is lacking, but I don't think that article mentions IsAnybodyDown. It includes a link but never discusses the website itself.
663:
806:
767:
206:
sources in the article to show the site's notability. The couple of RS on the page are for tangential subjects, not the topic site itself.
833:
467:
370:
IsAnybodyDown.com - Does not need to be linked in multiple sections/multiple links unless they are directly referenced by notable sources
100:
95:
250:- with the addition of Techdirt and Ars Technica articles, it has become sufficiently notable, and we can write a well-sourced article.
567:
510:
375:
104:
17:
87:
788:
that someone wants to censor a civilized discussion of its notability on grounds unrelated to notability, it's probably notable.
748:
189:
506:
156:
53:
879:
484:
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/is-isanybodydown-com-operator-craig-brittain-and-david-blade-one-and-the-same/
374:
Essentially, the top 4 are squatting on this article and engaging in vandalism on behalf of their non-notable websites.
40:
150:
856:
319:
860:
837:
818:
797:
779:
752:
718:
699:
675:
651:
630:
594:
575:
548:
518:
494:
475:
471:
459:
428:
402:
383:
340:
323:
306:
282:
259:
242:
218:
69:
146:
626:
829:
775:
714:
571:
514:
424:
379:
278:
214:
875:
398:
302:
196:
63:
36:
618:
847:
I reverse my earlier vote to delete. NPR has now identified the founders and interviewed one of them.
486:
394:
91:
852:
671:
590:
315:
230:
745:
336:
182:
730:
582:
814:
622:
793:
771:
710:
647:
420:
274:
210:
162:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
874:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
770:
If this counts as a RS, then the corner from non-notable to notable may have been turned. -
298:
58:
446:
hosted on IsAnybodyDown, but nothing remotely resembling reliable coverage of the website.
667:
586:
507:
http://velvet.hu/sztori/2012/10/19/tanarnojerol_posztolt_pucer_kepeket_az_iskolas_szereto/
83:
75:
848:
233:
looks reliable to me (though my French is not the best), but on its own it's not enough.
742:
695:
544:
490:
455:
332:
255:
238:
559:
810:
789:
643:
121:
733:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
691:
563:
540:
451:
251:
234:
766:
Ok. We have what may be the first English Reliable Source out today.
583:
experienced Knowledge (XXG) editors understand is not a reliable site
868:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
555:
364:
Huffington Post - Notable, but does not mention Is Anybody Down.
664:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/IsAnybodyDown?
690:, which is a useful and well-regarded wikipedia article
419:
changing my mind if multiple RS can be come up with. -
117:
113:
109:
560:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research
181:
447:
740:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
195:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
882:). No further edits should be made to this page.
564:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability
805:This is reaching major news outlets including
640:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
638:Note: This debate has been included in the
637:
688:The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute
556:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPOV
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
662:: This same content also appears at
24:
1:
861:02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
819:01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
798:23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
780:16:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
753:18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
719:03:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
700:17:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
283:20:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
260:05:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
70:02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
676:00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
652:03:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
631:03:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
595:17:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
576:23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
549:21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
519:21:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
495:21:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
476:23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
460:19:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
429:18:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
403:12:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
384:09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
355:Adamsteinbaugh - Not notable
341:04:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
324:00:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
307:00:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
243:23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
219:22:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
899:
358:Abovethelaw - Not notable
871:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
761:Arbitrary Section Break
367:AngelList - Not notable
361:Jezebel - Not notable
352:Popehat - Not notable
48:The result was
832:comment added by
755:
654:
448:http://velvet.hu/
54:non-admin closure
890:
873:
849:NPR On The Media
841:
751:
739:
735:
200:
199:
185:
137:
125:
107:
66:
61:
34:
898:
897:
893:
892:
891:
889:
888:
887:
886:
880:deletion review
869:
853:Adam.steinbaugh
827:
763:
741:
728:
316:Adam.steinbaugh
142:
133:
98:
82:
79:
64:
59:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
896:
894:
885:
884:
864:
863:
842:
834:160.39.170.150
821:
800:
782:
762:
759:
758:
757:
756:
737:
736:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
703:
702:
679:
678:
656:
655:
634:
633:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
468:91.125.140.243
434:
433:
432:
431:
416:
412:
406:
405:
372:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
350:
343:
326:
309:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
265:
264:
263:
262:
203:
202:
139:
84:IsAnybodyDown?
78:
76:IsAnybodyDown?
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
895:
883:
881:
877:
872:
866:
865:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
825:
822:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
786:
783:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:
760:
754:
750:
747:
744:
738:
734:
732:
727:
726:
720:
716:
712:
707:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
684:
681:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
636:
635:
632:
628:
624:
623:Aeternitas827
620:
615:
612:
611:
596:
592:
588:
584:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:Here you go:
504:
496:
492:
488:
485:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
443:Above the Law
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
430:
426:
422:
417:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:Do not delete
388:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
347:
346:Speedy Delete
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
308:
304:
300:
295:
292:
291:
284:
280:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
207:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
67:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
870:
867:
844:
828:— Preceding
823:
807:Ars Technica
802:
784:
772:TexasAndroid
768:Ars Technica
729:
711:TexasAndroid
682:
659:
613:
568:75.70.221.14
511:75.70.221.14
442:
421:TexasAndroid
389:
376:75.70.221.14
373:
345:
328:
311:
293:
275:TexasAndroid
247:
225:
224:
211:TexasAndroid
208:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
130:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
803:Strong keep
683:Strong keep
619:WP:NEWSBLOG
614:Weak Delete
587:Nat Gertler
487:Givemelsats
395:Givemelsats
299:Mark Arsten
231:GQ Magazine
226:Weak delete
169:free images
668:Shearonink
876:talk page
644:• Gene93k
333:White Ash
37:talk page
878:or in a
830:unsigned
811:Cowicide
731:Relisted
128:View log
39:or in a
790:Jamouse
175:WP refs
163:scholar
101:protect
96:history
65:polisme
329:Delete
312:Delete
294:Delete
147:Google
105:delete
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
857:talk
851:. --
845:Keep
838:talk
824:Keep
815:talk
794:talk
785:Keep
776:talk
715:talk
696:talk
692:TJIC
672:talk
660:Note
648:talk
627:talk
591:talk
585:. --
572:talk
545:talk
541:Huon
515:talk
491:talk
472:talk
456:talk
452:Huon
425:talk
399:talk
380:talk
337:talk
320:talk
303:talk
279:talk
256:talk
252:Huon
248:Keep
239:talk
235:Huon
215:talk
183:FENS
157:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
60:Theo
50:keep
749:ley
746:and
743:TBr
197:TWL
126:– (
56:) —
52:. (
859:)
840:)
817:)
809:.
796:)
778:)
717:)
698:)
674:)
650:)
642:.
629:)
593:)
574:)
562:,
558:,
547:)
517:)
493:)
474:)
458:)
427:)
401:)
382:)
339:)
322:)
305:)
281:)
258:)
241:)
229:-
217:)
177:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
855:(
836:(
813:(
792:(
774:(
713:(
694:(
670:(
646:(
625:(
589:(
570:(
543:(
513:(
489:(
470:(
454:(
423:(
397:(
378:(
335:(
318:(
301:(
277:(
254:(
237:(
213:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
131:·
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.