Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio (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. W.marsh 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kafenio

Kafenio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page still doesn't really assert any notability. Its full of 'sources' but these are all blogs, newsletters, search engines or broken links. I believe that, unless some of the claims are substantiated, it fails WP:WEB.

Its previous listing can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio. Its a recent one with no non-keep votes and one which I closed. However, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. At least two of the voters in the Kafenio discussion had both contributed to the ezine and were together on the same Greek island when 'voting'. Though there is no reason to suspect that they delibetatly tried to manipulate the system, their votes nonetheless gave a false impression of a consensus: take them away and there were just 3 votes, all keep but two from users for whom it was their first contribution... anyway, I think its worth a relisting. --Robdurbar 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, evidently written by blunderer but Kafenio was even mentioned at a UN conference, see United Nations Conference on Trade and Development The Book of Aspirations page 38 YamSan 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I still don't see the controversy. The article does not demonstrate notability sufficient to satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web). The whole thing reads like someone is trying to puff up the claims and use Wikipedia to establish their fame. In fact, most of the article was written by a former writer for the site. Moreover, I can find no independent verification of the site's contributions to the web community or its claims as a major innovator. The site was never highly ranked by any independent source such as Alexa and went defunct after a few years of publication. Even the former publisher has made a request that the article be deleted. Yes, the former employees remember it fondly, but that doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia entry. SteveHopson 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been annoyed before by your soap-boxing antics in AfDs, but linking a user‘s talk page, that evidently has been blanked by mutual consent of both writer and receiver really takes the biscuit around here.

But let‘s not talk about rude manners and rather about your scientific way to establish notability. Let‘s take your favorite, ALEXA statistic‘s. If you had bothered checking the methodology, you would have discovered that these statistics are based on users who use the ALEXA Toolbar. And investigating the history of that bar makes it evident that it did not exist before 2003 in a notable fashion. Kafenio did not exist anymore at that time so there cannot be a useful ALEXA statistic. In fact, having a million downloads (which does not imply a million users) of the aforesaid toolbar still means that only a fraction of a percent of all Internet users surfing habits are recorded, whose statistical relevance is questionable at best. Besides that, on many sites there are instructions on how to write a simple Basic program to improve the ALEXA statistics on a site. That may be the explanation of why obscure publications, that never get quoted and never are noted by anyone, rank so high on ALEXA statistics.

The only way to establish notability in this case is solid library work and in doing that you might learn a thing or two about notability.

YamSan 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the user talk page was blanked and still consider Kafenio's editor's comments about this article to be relevant. I am aware of the limitations of Alexa, but know of no other source for this type of information. I choose to ignore your personal comments against me, but would ask you to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. SteveHopson 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Calm down you guys... its a poorly cited entry about a site that was good back in the day. It died tho. Sorry man. MrMacMan 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is poorly sourced and, after going through the sources and references provided, the subject's verifiable claim to fame seems to be that it was listed as 12th of 25 and 25th of 50 best places to get published online. --Chondrite 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Chondrite. The only verifiable claim to fame does not merit it an article. Thryduulf 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Chondrite. The references given look pretty trivial. I don't see anything that would indicate verifiable notability. ScottW 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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.