Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Rain Genomics (2nd nomination)

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. kur ykh 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Rain Genomics[edit]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this website, which is merely some satellite images backed by a gazetteer with a side dish of Google Ads, is not at all notable. Our article on it contains no assertion of notability, and I myself can find nothing. Its root page looks like this!

I would have speedily deleted it per A7, but it seem that this has already been AfD'd once, here, where the result was no consensus on the back of very little interest. The only "weak keep" was based on the fact that there are apparently about 14,000 links to this site from within Wikipedia. I dearly hope we haven't reached the point where one can confer notability upon a website simply by linking to it from here. And I fear that the large number of links from here is an indication that we have been spammed bigtime. That site obviously makes money from page views, and it is clearly an unreliable and not-very-useful source that we ought not be linking to at all, let alone 14000 times! Hesperian 03:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. I don't think we've been systematically spammed, as the site does provide some useful data for lots of really obscure places. I'm unsure if its a RS though. But I agree that that has nothing to do with its notability. Moondyne 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://fallingrain.com/world/ is a useful site for showing railway lines and terrain together, and Falling Rain Genomics is a page that explains how it works. Fallingrain can access several million place name? Tabletop (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion should not be about the site's usefulness as a Wikipedia reference. Moondyne 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, largely agree with nom. Also WP:NOTGUIDE. Agree with Moondyne too - many, many sites by the way are used as Wikipedia references (although this one shouldn't be IMHO due to the number of inaccuracies and errors) which do not have their own articles, so this is a red herring. Orderinchaos 09:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As proposer of the previous AfD, I still agree with my reasoning then, and with the current nom. Fram (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the primary notability criteria as has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Its a useful resource for determining the elevation of locations for geographic articles but the article is essentially a how-to guide, so also falls foul of WP:NOTGUIDE as noted above. Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom - 1st afd and 2nd afd both raise questions about notability. My issue originally was with the very poor quality of maps/images used on wikipedia - however now i see the article I am concerned that there is something very odd in the article and the use of the material as source. Satu Suro 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usage guide to a non notable website. The given reference is a passing mention in a discussion of geographical sources, not specifically devoted to the website itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable site, 14000 links from WP seams like Spam links to me Gnan garra 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to pass WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 23 October 2008 (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.