Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl-click
- 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 of the debate was delete, removing WotW52s vote as a salvage attempt. – Sceptre (Talk) 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl-click[edit]
Non-notable website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am objected to this proposal for deletion and will be editing the entry to, hopefully, make it better.--Waroftheworlds52 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable blog. If Waroftheworlds52 can update to show notability and provide verifiable sources, I will be happy to reconsider. Gwernol 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An advertisement masquerading as an article. The blog is currently nn / does not meet the WP:WEB guideline. Also Wikipedia is (WP:)not a soapbox. Politepunk 17:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After considering the above points I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to be able to satisfy the criteria of the site. As the author I no longer hold an objection to this entry being deleted. --Waroftheworlds52 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waroftheworlds52 did not create this entry for any reason other than a reference to the site, who's popularity is growing rapidly, NOT as an advertisement. MagicalTrevor
Keep.User MagicalTrevor's statement is correct. This wikipedia entry was intended as a site reference and not an advertisement for the site. Furthermore, as proof of Ctrl-click.com's notability, it is the 7th result produced by the PageRank technology when searching for the query Ctrl-click on Google- http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Ctrl-click&btnG=Google+Search&meta= . I realise this comment perhaps does not mirror my earlier sentiments but in the light of the recent comment by MagicalTrevor I felt it best to verify his statement. I would also like to point out that there is now a link to the ctrl-click.com collection of podcasts found via Apple Computer's iTunes software- surely the site is of some not if it produces podcasts worthy enough of a music download service which has recently sold over 1 billion tracks?--Waroftheworlds52 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that 50% of the (4) past and present staff members of the blog listed in the article have argued for the retention of the site doesn't really cause me to doubt my initial impression about the purpose of the article. The article (or your arguments here) don't establish the notability of the your website sufficiently to make me think that it warrants an article. Sorry. Politepunk 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteIt's just a blog, with no indication that it's any different from any other blog. Any site turns up high if you search for its name - the fact that it turns up seventh (rather than first) is an indciation of how unknown it is. DJ Clayworth 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Engadget is also "just a blog". And CC may not look too different, but with up to 300 hits an hour from all over the world, it's a very popular blog, just like Engadget. And of course, there's PSPCC and The ninjUX Project, I belive we deserve an entry.
UPDATE: We're changing to a full site, with many subdomains. MagicalTrevor
- 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.