Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokemon-Safari.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 The Land 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pokemon-Safari.com[edit]
Was tagged for prod and prod2. Web site for which it has not been shown that it meets WP:WEB. While Pokemon certainly is notable (shudder), Pokemon fansites are not automatically notable. Recommend delete. --DrTorstenHenning 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Alexa rank <10k. [1] Kappa 08:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per Kappa's Alexa rank. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as prodder. Vanity article: [2], PokeCruft. This article could be classified as vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Alexa rank is irrelevant if the only criteria. Another fan site that had sub-10k Alexa rank was deleted despite its ranking. No verifiability with reliable sources seals the deal. ColourBurst 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fdg35 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Alexa rank is a non-valid reason to keep. Article does not assert how it meets andy of the criterial of WP:WEB.. --Kunzite 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is a valid reason to keep. Kappa 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no criteria for keeping something based on the number of internet hits. You cite an arbitrary ranking number by ranking firm whose methods of gathering information is disputed. According to actual guidelines for Web content (WP:WEB) the website must have been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial media coverage, have been re-published by a major media outlet, or have won a major award. (i.e. A Webby Award not MarySue's Award for Awesome Pokesite.) --Kunzite 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The ranking is not arbitrary, it means its one of the top 10,000 sites among Alexa users. That makes it popular enough to belong in anything that aspires to be a comprehensive encylopedia. Kappa 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I remain unconvinced that you know what an encyclopedia is, Kappa. Few, if any, websites have individual articles in other encyclopedias. For example, it appears that the only mention of Google in the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica is in their article entitled "Search Engine". And even if other encyclopedias did regularly include articles on websites, they would use some knowledge-based criteria based on importance or historical significance, not on Alexa rankings. — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An encylopedia is a book (website/whatever) which explains things. Unlike WP, I don't think EB has any aspiration or duty to be a comprehensive encylopedia of websites. A popular website is inherently important to a large number of users and the topic it focuses on. Kappa 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I remain unconvinced that you know what an encyclopedia is, Kappa. Few, if any, websites have individual articles in other encyclopedias. For example, it appears that the only mention of Google in the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica is in their article entitled "Search Engine". And even if other encyclopedias did regularly include articles on websites, they would use some knowledge-based criteria based on importance or historical significance, not on Alexa rankings. — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't call the Alexa ranking arbitrary. I called your use of an alexa ranking of X as arbitrary. We have guidelines for inclusion. Those are at WP:WEB. This site doesn't meet those guidelines for inclusion and should be removed. We should not go by your arbitrary proclamation that the site is popular because of an ephemeral web ranking by a company with questionable ranking measures. --Kunzite 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an arbitrary proclamation, its based on verifiable third-party evidence from the best available source. A three-month figure is not particularly ephemeral, but today's rank is even better at 3,909 [3]. Kappa 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not disputing that the Alexa ranking exists. I am saying that you are making an arbitrary judgement call based on your personal beliefs at what level of ranking a certain Alexa ranking in terms of its notablity. In terms of websites, I think that rank is pretty darned low. But that's also arbitrary, ergo.. We have a set of guidelines on web content at WP:WEB. Please show me where this site has had any non-trivial mentions in any major media-source? Has this site won any major non-trivial award? As this site or any of its contents been republished by any major media-source? I'd love to see what you find. Can you cite any sources other than the primary source? Can you cite any that meet the guidelines on reliable sources? --Kunzite 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's a popular website, we should do the best we can to inform wp users about it. Kappa 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's popular based on what? An arbitrary call on your part that websites with X-ranking on a certain? If it were truly popular wouldn't someone, somewhere, have written about it? That would make it meet the guidelines at WP:WEB (something you still haven't addressed, BTW) --Kunzite 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean "wouldn't someone, somewhere have paid someone else to write about it?". The answer is "not necessarily" - it's a pokemon fansite after all. Kappa 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a subject about which nothing verifiable can be said, due to the lack of third-party commentary? I'm convinced. Delete per WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an arbitrary proclamation, its based on verifiable third-party evidence from the best available source. A three-month figure is not particularly ephemeral, but today's rank is even better at 3,909 [3]. Kappa 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The ranking is not arbitrary, it means its one of the top 10,000 sites among Alexa users. That makes it popular enough to belong in anything that aspires to be a comprehensive encylopedia. Kappa 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no criteria for keeping something based on the number of internet hits. You cite an arbitrary ranking number by ranking firm whose methods of gathering information is disputed. According to actual guidelines for Web content (WP:WEB) the website must have been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial media coverage, have been re-published by a major media outlet, or have won a major award. (i.e. A Webby Award not MarySue's Award for Awesome Pokesite.) --Kunzite 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is a valid reason to keep. Kappa 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB.
For those concerned about loss of information, let's be honest: the only information in the article can be summed up as "Pokemon-Safari is a popular Pokemon fansite. It was founded in 1999 in Spanish. It became popular in 2006 when an English version was launched." There's no reason those three sentences need to be surrounded by an entire article of cruft, when the useful and verifiable information from this article could easily be made even more useful by putting it in some sensible context and adding those three sentences to a more general article on Pokemon fansites. — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, doesn't seem like the site produces much information, but rather summarizes available information. —Philip N.✉ 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom and others above. Also, Alexa rank and google search results are not acceptable examples of notability, especially for something so clearly crufty. We use such results for things we suspect are worthy of keeping, and then that's only a temporary measure pending further proof. -- Ned Scott 13:47, 6 September 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.