Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iusethis
- 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. Petros471 13:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COntested prod, no evidence of notability.--Peta 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Alexa ~ 56,000. [1] No evidence of notability as well. MER-C 12:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alexia is a windows MSIE only toolbar, so it might not be very viable for measuring mac sites?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.159.43.66 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 September 2006.
- Delete WP:SPAM A web site launched a mere 2 months ago by two non-notable authors, is unlikely to have reached any cultural significance as far as I can see. Cain Mosni 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete evaluation shows not notable. Goldenrowley 08:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a notable use of the Catalyst MVC Framework, implemented by a core developer of said framework.
Links mentioning iusethis: [2] [3] delicious digg 285_000 google results.
Why research when we can just wank, though?
Jrockway 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 287000 Google hits, yes, which it manages to distill down to "useful" 59 hits (a significant proportion of the duplication coming from iusethis.com itself). So someone's been link farming. What of it? That screams NN to me (not to mention deliberate misrepresentation). It's the independent Ghits that matter. A mention on digg, delicio.us and a blog or two do not amount to notability.
- I don't see that the site being an example of an implementation of something by someone being in any way a justification of its notability in its own right (on which is based its merit for its own article). You want it cited as an implementation example, go right ahead on the appropriate page. Two lines is all that takes at most, not a whole article.
- The task of WP is to document that which is notable, not that which may be expected to become such. Whilst you are the author of the artcile in question, and you no doubt feel somewhat slighted by the suggestion of its removal that does not excuse incivility. Cain Mosni 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fair argument, except for the rediculous accusation of Link Farming. I added the article because it's one of 4 major sites that uses Catalyst. Links that go nowhere defeat the entire purpose of a Wiki, so deleting the article will degrade the experience of people visiting the Catalyst page, etc.
- 128.135.99.80 is me, BTW. Jrockway 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you call 286000 indexable links from a site back to itself, if not link farming? Even if it's a (very conservative 80% of the total links on Google - judging by the proportion of links from the site back to itself if you ask Google to list them without suppression) that's nearly a quarter million links from the site back to itself. A site that's a mere 2 months old. By comparison, the BBC News site, which has been around for about 10 years, only has 6 and a half million links, and its one of the busiest news sites there is. Cain Mosni 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IN light of fact that author found some importance, I would suggest merging it into a larger category page that has to do with it. Perhaps use it to expand the article that linked to it in the first place? Goldenrowley 02:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think you all should do well to remember that google's page count's are just estimates, and sometimes wildly inaccurate. For instance:
Shows that google has indexed 22 000 pages for osx.iusethis.com.
however http://www.google.com/search?hs=sHI&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=osx.iusethis.com+-site%3Aosx.iusethis.com&btnG=Search shows that there are 31 300 hits for osx.iusethis.com when you exclude the site itself.
which indicates that the 286 000 hits number from google above has to be incorrect.
Marcusramberg 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) -- (I wasn't going to get involved in this, but I'm offended at being accused of black hat SEO practices). If you want to claim that I'm doing something like that, I'd like to see an example of a page on the site that's only there to game the search engines rather than benefit the user.[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.