532:(please forgive my ingorance on Wiki formatting) The only thing I could think of would be magazine articles. Showdog was featured in a full page article in the Sep/Oct 2005 issue of "The AKC Family Dog" (pg. 38-39) and a paragraph in the February 2006 issue of "DOGFANCY". Showcattle.com was the featured front page story in the April 19, 2002 issue of "Southern Livestock Standard". None of those articles are posted online due to the policies of the relevant publications. In terms of web awards, there are a few but I've never placed much crediblity in any of them. I want to stress that I'm not trying to lobby one way or the other, just providing information for those of you who know the policies.
445:
remove them, I just want to stress that they weren't done by myself. BTW, regarding Alexa rank, Showdog does over 16 million page views per month, has 12,000 users who have logged in during the past two-weeks, and we ranked MUCH higher on Alexa when we only got 2 million. Alexa is just flat out bogus. I'm not sure what the criteria for "handful of Google hits" is but we recieved 20,000 referals from Google last month from 2,434 unique search terms. Showcattle does about 1/5 the traffic of
Showdog but was the original sit in our line of simulations. It's the only online game that focuses on the agricultural niche but is most certainly a MUCH smaller site than Showdog.
715:: Hi. Since I originally nominated Showcattle.com (and later added Showdog.com), I just wanted to add some context for you. Before I do, I'd like to thank you for participating in this discussion though. As you can imagine, tracking down reliable sources can be hard work - you providing them is appreciated. I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding here. I never questioned your credibility and I don't think any other editor did either. In that context, the only question was whether there were reliable sources to back up the claim that your websites are indeed notable as defined by
754:. It is a shame to see double standards here on Knowledge. Just check "Multiplayer online games" category and you'll see a dozen games without any sources cited. But nobody proposes them for deletion. Why? Maybe because there is big business behind those games. Showdog.com lacks flashy animations, vampires and murders, so let's delete it! No matter that tens of thousands of people play it... as nobody wrote about it on the net it's not notorius... erm... "notable" enough. Shame on us!
723:. Citations allow anyone to check the accuracy of such a statement and help establish it as a fact. For instance, in your case, I could claim that Showdog.com generated $ 2b in ad revenue last year since, technically, noone (with a few exceptions) is barred from adding information to Knowledge. If I were to make such a claim, it would most likely be removed and I'd be asked to add a reliable, verifiable source. It's a form of peer-review, if you will that is one of the
667:. Although the sites are certainly notable and worthy of being included in Knowledge, the articles themselves at the moment lack sources other than primary ones. So until somebody (i.e. probably the site owner, as he is the one who has them - but he doesn't want to) cites the printed articles in the correct way, the articles should be deleted. I would do it, but I don't have the articles.
325:
444:
This is the owner of the sites, our users put them together, the only edit I have done was to correct the spelling of my name. I was alerted to them by somebody requesting permission to use our logo on the page and then again today when they sent me this link through our forums. Please feel free to
391:
Regarding the listings, I questioned whether to even allow our users to put them up. To be honest, I actually donāt see the point of a Wiki listing in the first place for our site. Thereās certainly not a selfish reason to be listed, we already get tons of referrals from search engines and I didnāt
629:
To save you guys the effort and wasted time of discussing this further, please just remove the listing. We really have no need to be listed on
Knowledge, it's clear that most here don't see a reason for it to be listed, and to be frank, some of the severely misguided "analysis" of our site is a bit
731:
In your case, it's really the same thing except the issue in question is (amongst other things) notability. Any questions about credibility were raised in that context. In other words, nobody is doubting your word or calling you a liar. It's just a process we try to follow to make sure we're all on
383:
As I said, our Alexa ranking was MUCH higher when we were a lot smaller site doing around 2-million page views per month. It routinely ranks our low traffic sites above our high traffic sites. Alexa is a severely flawed tool that gives inaccurate information for anything outside the top 500 sites
349:
Fair enough, seeing the unlocked usage log is a show of good faith, and it does report about 20,000 visitors/day, although that doesn't take into account daily usage from unique IP addresses. Even cut by the expected percentage, though, several thousand users a day is good evidence of notability.
419:
I completely agree with RGTraynor's assertion that the cattle site is non-notable, but showdog.com seems to have quite a large internet following. I looked it up on a search engine, and as I sifted through the pages of results I found a large amount of unaffiliated personal sites that are "virtual
708:
As I said, just remove the articles. They do nothing for us, theyāre just the work of some of our customers, itās a pretty clear consensus that you guys donāt feel they are appropriate, and to be frank I really donāt see a reason to continue to validate these facts. I ask that you stop with the
387:
Regarding āgenuine sourcingā, the EW article is the least credible but the only one posted on the
Internet. The print articles from leading industry publications are hanging on my wall in front of me right now but are not online. Iām sure you realize the folly of expecting everything that is
371:
Let me be clear that I'm not arguing with you in hopes of the article remaining, I had nothing to do with it and Iām not sure the site should even be listed myself. However, you are making some claims based on false information that I simply cannot let pass without correcting.
770:
Multiplayer games get AfDed all the time for reasons of non-notability or failure to demonstrate usage; I've voted in four of them this past week alone. If your research has turned up such games that you don't think pass notability muster, feel free to file on them yourself.
298:
as well. "ShowCattle.com allows you complete control over the breeding of your cattle with several realistic options like pasture breeding, artificial insemination, and embryo transfer." Oh boy! (They also have a
Showcats.com and a TrophyHorse.com, if you're interested.)
518:. Basically, we need to find independent sources that have written about this web site in order to find it notable. Are you aware of significant sources that have reviewed the site, or noteworthy awards it has won? Can you help us find the sources we need? -
719:. I don't want to bore you so I'll try to keep this brief: citing sources is important for a variety of reasons but, basically, the idea is that statements made on this Wiki should be verifiable, accurate and not
375:
Yes, Alexa is so wrong itās scary to think that there are people so uniformed that they would use it it as a legitimate source of information. You can find the entire log report for the most recent analysis at
420:
kennel clubs" for it, leading me to believe that it is indeed notable. I'd guess that the other show.com sites are a spinoff to showdog.com, which is the most successful and established site out of the bunch.
709:
questions of my credibility, itās just disrespectful. I have provided you with information to back up everything I said. All of you have better stuff to do with your time and so do I.
790:. A rather unique idea, and if it had some quality references I'd be happy to support keeping, but as it stands now, one entertainment weekly blog doesn't seem to be enough.
165:
114:
700:
That kind of bureaucratic stuff is why I went into business for myself. Hereās the info we have short of taking them out of their frames and scanning them for youā¦
392:
notice
Knowledge in the top 100 referrers to our site. Knowledge also isnāt the kind of directory where information on our site is relevant to any core issue.
380:(I have removed the password protection for 24-hours). You are not being conned although I wish we didnāt have the server bill for that level of traffic.
676:
It's not that I don't want to, I've provided all the information we have. What's the correct way to cite a print article that is not posted online?
448:
395:
However, your rationale for measuring the credibility of websites is flawed and should be reconsidered in the future when analyzing other sites.
452:
176:. This is most likely CSD G11 or prod material but I wanted to err on the side of caution as the websites in question look legitimate.
274:
87:
82:
593:
553:
484:
434:
91:
316:
To append to my own !vote, the Alexa and Google info I have up there is for
Showcattle.com alone. Showdogs.com's Alexa ranking is
138:
133:
74:
17:
271:
142:
125:
791:
654:
563:
A paragraph in an online blog on the EW website, anyway. Any indication that EW did a genuine piece on the site?
833:
36:
832:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
456:
816:
630:
insulting. (I'd also prefer that we don't get outranked by a Wiki listing on our site some day in GoogleĀ ;)
818:
803:
779:
758:
736:
695:
671:
659:
624:
598:
571:
558:
527:
502:
489:
460:
439:
358:
342:
307:
278:
250:
230:
210:
201:
180:
52:
801:
621:
268:
470:
Thank you for the clarification. I am beginning to wonder if these sites should be on two separate AFDs.
78:
523:
246:
755:
668:
129:
410:
262:. Someone well versed in deletion nominate the three images in the dog one at IfD as well, please. ā
172:
Non-notable websites. (Almost) completely unsourced. Reads like an ad and consequently doesn't pass
70:
58:
813:
692:
414:
227:
190:
121:
62:
536:
589:
585:
576:
EW didn't write about us in any print publication, it was just a blog post by
Michael Slezak.
549:
545:
480:
476:
430:
426:
263:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
706:āClick and youāre in the cattle businessā, Southern Livestock Standard pg 1, April 19th, 2002
519:
327:, and I'm not seeing any reliable, independent published sources cropping up in the list.
242:
49:
772:
688:
648:
564:
495:
351:
335:
300:
259:
194:
733:
637:
617:
515:
295:
287:
207:
198:
177:
173:
724:
720:
581:
541:
472:
422:
291:
159:
108:
514:
The guidelines we're using for determining whether the article is deleted are at
716:
221:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
642:
467:
Correction, spelling of a sister site, not my name. Sorry for the mistake.
294:, and with a mighty Alexa rank of #1,207,306 and a handful of Google hits,
324:
Showdog.com (leaving out its own webpage) only returns 685 Google hits
384:
on the
Internet. Using it as a credible source is shaky at best.
377:
826:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
320:, which is a hell of a lot worse, so either Alexa's wrong
494:
Nah, we should just discuss their merits independently.
155:
151:
147:
104:
100:
96:
704:āFantasy Kennelsā, AKC Family Dog pg 38, Sep/Oct 2005
702:āWin Best in Show ā Onlineā, Dogfancy, February 2006
333:
until we see some genuine sourcing for either site.
226:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
206:I went ahead and bundled the two AfDs together. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
322:or we're being conned as to the site's pageviews.
836:). No further edits should be made to this page.
579:Oh, I guess I misunderstood the page. My fault.
189:: I assume it's in essence the same story for
732:the same page, objective and fair. Cheers, --
8:
388:āgenuineā to be posted on the Internet.
7:
284:Delete and shovel under the stable.
537:an article in Entertainment Weekly
24:
378:http://www.showdog.com/logreport/
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
329:Right now my !vote remains to
193:(note: that page was recently
1:
853:
819:04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
665:Delete both, unfortunately
202:23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
181:23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
53:15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
804:16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
780:03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
759:00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
737:21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
696:16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
672:00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
660:23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
625:15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
599:15:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
572:15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
559:15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
528:15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
503:16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
490:15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
461:14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
440:14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
359:20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
343:16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
308:13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
279:13:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
251:11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
231:10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
211:13:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
829:Please do not modify it.
636:. Fails all criteria of
32:Please do not modify it.
512:Question for site owner
451:comment was added by
241:non-notable games. -
721:original research
622:Retiono Virginian
464:
233:
844:
831:
798:
795:
776:
616:- Fails to meet
568:
499:
446:
355:
339:
304:
225:
222:
163:
145:
112:
94:
34:
852:
851:
847:
846:
845:
843:
842:
841:
840:
834:deletion review
827:
796:
793:
774:
566:
497:
447:āThe preceding
353:
337:
302:
220:
136:
120:
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
850:
848:
839:
838:
822:
821:
785:
784:
783:
782:
762:
761:
752:Just a comment
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
729:
728:
707:
705:
703:
701:
680:
679:
678:
677:
662:
631:
627:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
465:
453:208.117.79.115
442:
411:Showcattle.com
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
394:
393:
390:
389:
386:
385:
382:
381:
374:
373:
362:
361:
346:
345:
311:
310:
281:
253:
235:
234:
224:
216:
215:
214:
213:
170:
169:
118:
71:Showcattle.com
65:
59:Showcattle.com
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
849:
837:
835:
830:
824:
823:
820:
817:
815:
814:Thewinchester
811:
808:
807:
806:
805:
802:
800:
799:
789:
781:
778:
777:
769:
766:
765:
764:
763:
760:
757:
753:
750:
749:
738:
735:
730:
727:of Knowledge.
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
710:
699:
698:
697:
694:
693:Potatoswatter
690:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
675:
674:
673:
670:
666:
663:
661:
657:
656:
651:
650:
645:
644:
639:
635:
632:
628:
626:
623:
619:
615:
612:
600:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
577:
575:
574:
573:
570:
569:
562:
561:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
538:
534:
533:
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
504:
501:
500:
493:
492:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
443:
441:
438:
436:
432:
428:
424:
418:
416:
412:
407:
406:
379:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
357:
356:
348:
347:
344:
341:
340:
334:
332:
326:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
306:
305:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
280:
277:
276:
273:
270:
265:
261:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
232:
229:
228:Mailer Diablo
223:
218:
217:
212:
209:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
175:
167:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
828:
825:
809:
792:
787:
786:
773:
767:
751:
725:five pillars
712:
664:
653:
646:
641:
633:
613:
580:
565:
540:
511:
496:
471:
421:
408:
352:
336:
330:
328:
321:
317:
301:
283:
267:
264:Vanderdecken
258:- NN games,
255:
238:
219:
186:
171:
45:
43:
31:
28:
788:Delete both
756:78.0.135.37
669:78.0.156.40
634:Delete both
582:The ikiroid
542:The ikiroid
520:FisherQueen
473:The ikiroid
423:The ikiroid
415:Showdog.com
331:Delete Both
243:FisherQueen
191:Showdog.com
122:Showdog.com
63:Showdog.com
50:Yannismarou
46:Delete both
775:RGTraynor
567:RGTraynor
539:about it.
498:RGTraynor
354:RGTraynor
338:RGTraynor
303:RGTraynor
812:per nom.
594:Advise me
554:Advise me
485:Advise me
435:Advise me
318:3,429,980
197:'ed). --
768:Comment:
734:Seed 2.0
535:I found
449:unsigned
208:Seed 2.0
199:Seed 2.0
178:Seed 2.0
166:View log
115:View log
713:Comment
689:WP:CITE
413:, keep
409:Delete
260:WP:VSCA
195:WP:PROD
187:Comment
139:protect
134:history
88:protect
83:history
810:Delete
638:WP:WEB
618:WP:WEB
614:Delete
516:WP:WEB
296:WP:WEB
288:WP:ATT
286:Fails
256:Delete
239:Delete
174:WP:WEB
143:delete
92:delete
292:WP:NN
160:views
152:watch
148:links
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
797:wood
794:Rook
717:WP:N
687:See
643:Sr13
590:desk
586:talk
550:desk
546:talk
524:Talk
481:desk
477:talk
457:talk
431:desk
427:talk
247:Talk
156:logs
130:talk
126:edit
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
61:and
164:ā (
113:ā (
691:.
658:)
640:.
620:.
526:)
459:)
290:,
266:ā“
249:)
158:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
655:C
652:|
649:T
647:(
596:)
592:Ā·
588:Ā·
584:(
556:)
552:Ā·
548:Ā·
544:(
522:(
487:)
483:Ā·
479:Ā·
475:(
463:.
455:(
437:)
433:Ā·
429:Ā·
425:(
417:.
275:Ļ
272:Ī¾
269:ā«
245:(
168:)
162:)
124:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.