Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Earth Hacks

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 No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Hacks[edit]

The article was prodded for verifiability and deleted already but the deletion is contested at WP:DRV, so I'm sending this here to establish community consensus. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide some information about the site:

References to the site from major news sources [1]
Statistics about the number of files on the site [2] and the number of members [3] (granted, those are on-site links, but I'm not sure how you could find accurate third-party references for those items)
A simple whois will verify the owner of the site and the date the URL was purchased [4]

I'm not sure what other information is needed.

Mickmel 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article is nothing but raw statistics, which read a lot like "Hey, look how good we are!". I am unsurprised to see information in support of the site being posted by the same person that used the word we in the review. Apparently the site is owned and run by someone called "Mickey Mellen" (hmm...). In all fairness, User:MickMel has only edited the article once - to update the numbers. No recommendation yet. Chris cheese whine 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out, yes, it's my site. I'll refrain from taking a side on this debate other than to contribute general information that might help with a decision. Mickmel 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, permission to add GEWar to the debate? Chris cheese whine 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEWar is a separate thing isn't it? Is it affiliated with Google Earth Hacks directly or just through the fact that it uses Google? Wickethewok 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by Google Earth Hacks and run on the site for a while before moving to it's own server. Mickmel 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that the article lists its creator as "Mickey" and extlinks to GEH. Again, it appears that User:Mickmel has not become involved with the article (which is a good thing). Chris cheese whine 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn/crufty. Anomo 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relevant guideline for "notability" as it pertains to internet content is here: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Dystopos 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Simonkoldyk 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have heard the phrase "Google Earth hacks" several times over the past few weeks. I thought it was just referring to different hacks people knew of. Without this article, how would I have known it was actually a website, and then how would I have known anything about that website?Tragic romance 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to deserve an article. utcursch | talk 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We've heard of it, yes, because Google has listed it as one of the Gadgets for its personalized home page, although saying its not their official product, and several million people have certainly seen the name, and a good many of them installed it. It's not a one-time thing, the hacks are being added to, and what more can anyone want for notability? Non-encyclopedic tone, and needs to be upgraded, but notable it certainly is.DGG 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable wp:WEB. Has been chosen as Site of the Day by About.com [5]. Google seems to have banned the site with a meager 4 hits, but there are 150K hits (gross) at Yahoo. -- Steve Hart 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DGC FirefoxMan 21:37, 10 December 2006 (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.