124:
notability guidelines, and tags pointing out that the info reads like an ad and lacks sources have been ignored by active editors, who appear to be affiliated with the site. I don't think this meets
Knowledge (XXG) notability requirements, and the tags haven't led to any improvement, so now putting
412:
the only source there is in the article shouldn't even be a source, which is the website itself. There needs to be reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Furthermore, it's written like an ad, which isn't allowed.
341:
I do not claim that we should have articles on all websites over a certain age. Rather, I claim that being (one of) the first major sites to do something in particular is probably a sign of notability.
120:- Article looks like spam. All information (and there's a ton of it) is taken direct from the website. There is no independent source for any of the information, no indication that it meets any of the
239:
04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- now that I look back on this comment, I wonder where I got the number 11 from. Maybe I misread it as from 1996, or my poor math skills are shining through :p --
265:
we have to follow. This article pretty clearly doesn't meet it as it stands now, as it has no reliable outside references, etc. If the age of a site made something notable, that'd be in
269:, wouldn't it? Why do we have two people here just kind of making up their own reasons off the top of their heads what makes something notable when we have criteria to determine that?
110:
252:
There are a lot of sites in the 10ish years age bracket. It really isn't that rare. We'd have thousands of articles on minor personal homepages if age made a site notable.
158:
I did a search for news coverage and the like, but nothing came up. Unless someone comes up with some reliable sources... this is a delete for lacking notability.
235:
I'd say that it's age is fairly notable, if true, because most sites die only after a few years. Eleven years is a long time, especially on the internet. --
170:
based on the age (websites from 1994 are pretty much the foundation of the internet). Assuming that factlet can be verified, that is. The article
218:
site or just one that was there at the time under a different owner) and never managed to get any reliable third party sources etc. (per
332:
It's not just a "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site", it's also a review. --
321:"newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"
17:
479:
the subject is notable regardless of how crappy the article is -- anybody voting Keep should scrounge around and just fix it. (
432:
499:
83:
78:
210:- I'm not sure how age gives it any sort of notability. In fact, in this case that might be a stronger argument that it's
87:
517:
36:
70:
148:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
315:-- those aren't real articles, they are just extremely brief summaries, a paragraph or less. In order to meet
49:
487:
222:
to acknowledge its existence? Wow. And the
Knowledge (XXG) article itself only sprung up a few months ago.
214:
notable. It's been around since at least 1996 (according to archive.org -- though I don't know if it's the
288:
463:
142:. I'd have said give the editors more time but if they've ignored tags I guess they've had their chance.
516:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talkin a
467:
437:
404:
392:
366:
336:
327:
294:
273:
256:
243:
226:
198:
162:
150:
129:
52:
483:
I've been on the internet almost every day since 1994, and I've never heard of this site until now.)
74:
425:
143:
313:
3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site"
495:
389:
343:
333:
291:
240:
236:
175:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
451:
285:
316:
306:
266:
262:
219:
121:
401:
420:
283:
491:
324:
270:
223:
126:
253:
159:
104:
456:
446:
66:
58:
174:
highly advertorial in tone, and way too long, and contains too much trivia.
510:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
139:
417:
282:
Here are two non-trivial reviews, both from magazines:
100:
96:
92:
287:. The traffic ranking of ~5k isn't that bad either
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
520:). No further edits should be made to this page.
305:the definition of trivial reviews as listed on
261:More to the point, we have a thing here called
8:
400:. Spam, spam, bacon, eggs and spam.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
475:Pink as the canned spam, but
537:
310:"Trivial coverage, such as
468:03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
438:00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
405:20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
393:04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
367:12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
337:20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
328:20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
323:that aren't short clips.
295:20:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
274:19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
257:05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
244:20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
227:17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
199:11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
163:02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
151:20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
130:20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
53:19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
513:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
445:- unsourced spam. -
301:Those two links are
504:
490:comment added by
388:. per radiant. --
319:you need to find
125:up for deletion.
528:
515:
503:
484:
459:
454:
449:
436:
431:
428:
423:
363:
361:
359:
357:
355:
195:
193:
191:
189:
187:
146:
108:
90:
34:
536:
535:
531:
530:
529:
527:
526:
525:
524:
518:deletion review
511:
485:
466:
457:
452:
447:
426:
421:
416:
414:
353:
351:
349:
347:
345:
185:
183:
181:
179:
177:
144:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
534:
532:
523:
522:
506:
505:
470:
462:
440:
407:
395:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
298:
297:
277:
276:
259:
247:
246:
230:
229:
202:
201:
165:
153:
145:Kim Dent-Brown
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
533:
521:
519:
514:
508:
507:
501:
497:
493:
489:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
465:
460:
455:
450:
444:
441:
439:
434:
429:
424:
419:
411:
408:
406:
403:
399:
396:
394:
391:
390:Android Mouse
387:
384:
383:
368:
365:
364:
340:
339:
338:
335:
334:Android Mouse
331:
330:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
308:
304:
300:
299:
296:
293:
292:Android Mouse
289:
286:
284:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
258:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
242:
241:Android Mouse
238:
237:Android Mouse
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
200:
197:
196:
173:
169:
166:
164:
161:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
141:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
123:
119:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
512:
509:
486:— Preceding
480:
476:
472:
442:
409:
397:
385:
344:
320:
312:
309:
302:
215:
211:
207:
176:
171:
167:
155:
135:
117:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
386:Slight keep
402:Groupthink
67:Fun Trivia
59:Fun Trivia
168:Week keep
500:contribs
492:Mike18xx
488:unsigned
477:possibly
464:Contribs
325:DreamGuy
271:DreamGuy
224:DreamGuy
127:DreamGuy
111:View log
473:Comment
443:Deklete
303:exactly
254:Polenth
208:Comment
160:Polenth
136:Delete.
84:protect
79:history
410:Delete
398:Delete
317:WP:WEB
307:WP:WEB
267:WP:WEB
263:WP:WEB
220:WP:WEB
156:Delete
138:Fails
122:WP:WEB
118:Delete
88:delete
50:Walton
46:Delete
481:Note:
346:: -->
178:: -->
140:W:WEB
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
496:talk
433:fish
427:zany
362:<
216:same
194:<
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
458:ggy
422:zel
212:not
109:– (
502:)
498:•
290:--
172:is
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
494:(
461:/
453:1
448:G
435:)
430:-
418:→
415:(
360:t
358:n
356:a
354:i
352:d
350:a
348:R
192:t
190:n
188:a
186:i
184:d
182:a
180:R
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.