Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com (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 of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com
This was nominated about a month ago, and no consensus was reached. However, now that we have guidelines for website inclusion, I think this needs to be revisited. First and foremost, its Alexa ranking is a whopping 1,607,664, which certainly suggest it's not nearly as well traveled as the article suggests. Secondly, considering how little information it contains, almost none of it is sourced, or even verifiable. Delete as non-notable advertising. --InShaneee 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * the words "...evidence points..." when supported by no evidence at all, are a bad sign. Ergo, Weak Delete. --Agamemnon2 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination --Quarl 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, according to new guidelines. I feel most of the "Keep" arguments from the last round were a bit weak.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  12:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TheKMan Compu  ter  Joe  12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Agamemnon2. Endomion 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the article was deleted in an act of vanadalism, the Alexa ranking has nothing to do with it because most of its fame comes through google images, which would not register on Alexa, it's audience is much higher. This article has survived two AfDs, please stop making them. User:VanillaX
 * Comment, it survived the previous afd thanks to votes from the article's creator and 3 people who made one of their 3 first posts on the afd. That's hardly a convincing case for not renominating - Bobet 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I deleted all of the nonsense about individual members and their screen names, that is not vandalism, it's cruft to the extreme. This is an nn website.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a noticeable website, and has an audience of decent size. Keep it. User:24.251.231.174 27 December, 2005
 * User's third edit. --InShaneee 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you say it's notable, and what you know about its audience size? rodii
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Using weasel words ("It is now known by some") without any source or verification to create claims of notability isn't very helpful for its case. - Bobet 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, has absolutely no remarkable qualities which make it worthy of an article in an encyclopaedia. Second time's the charm. Lord Bob 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, vanity . From VanillaX's user page: "The original author contacted me about working some on this article, since, as one of the creators of the website, I knew some details about it, so I agreed to work on it and I think it turned out pretty well." rodii 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - How does that make it vanity? Let's be realistic here, if I'm not the original author but I am one of the creators of the site, doesn't that actually prove the opposite? If someone else took the time to make it, I obviously wasn't trying to advertise my own site. User:VanillaX
 * I don't see how that's obvious. You're contributing to an article, and arguing for the importance of a subject, about a website you created. OK--I will amend "vanity" to "self-promotion", which is what I should have said. Apologies for the misstatement. But unless there's some way to document its notability, that's all it is. rodii 02:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that it's not self-promotion because I neither wrote the article or run the site now. Someone else wrote the wikipedia article and contacted me to work on the article since I knew more about it than them. If this was self-promotion, I would have done an article on XoA Online, because that is my site. My only link to the site is that I host it and I helped create it, I have very little to do with it now. If I wasn't the driving force behind the creation of the wikipedia article or the site itself, how could this be self-promotion? If you guys don't feel the article is worth keeping, that's fine, but just don't say that this is self-promotion. User:VanillaX 9:52 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I appreciate the correction. rodii 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to have this article deleted, it's a good solid paintball website, it's obviously notable to the paintball community, keep it. 8:29 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsigned vote by User:68.46.199.61 - User:VanillaX
 * User's only edit. --InShaneee 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is lacking information on paintball, why delete a portion of what little we have? 9:54 27 December 2005 - User:Balthazar6669
 * user's sixth edit was to sign this previously un-signed vote, has only one edit besides this AfD and his user/talk page. Lord Bob 04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm here at the request of VanillaX. I'm new to wikipedia so bear with me. bestsiteever.xoaonline.com is my site. Vanilla isn't trying to selfpromote anything because it's mine, not his, and he's told me he wasn't even the initial writer of the wikipedia article. I don't know if that changed anybody's opinion on this, but I figured I'd try and clarify.
 * Unsigned comment by User:69.247.169.155. User's only edit. --InShaneee 04:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well, judging by the comments here, it's not self-advertising, so let's keep it and move on...again. User:nicejobidiot08 2:18 28 December 2005
 * user's first edit. Lord Bob 20:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Look at the alexa weekly ranking, it's fairly high. Besides, most the audience is google images, which wouldn't be on there anyway. 10:21 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsigned comment by User:69.254.249.38. User's second edit. --InShaneee 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to look at an alexa ranking for this forum, since the alexa ranking would be for the entire xoaonline.com site. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete,This is not a notable paintball website. Notable paintball websites would include PBnation or Force of Nature or Warpig (started in 1987). These sites have stood the test of time and are the ones getting the lion's share of visits by paintball players.  Do you really want a site that has minimal information, weak design, and makes questionable claims to represent the paintball community?  On their front page they have this statement "Die Hard paintball also sales new and used guns, vistit our pro shop at http://www.pevs.com/" - I doubt that Mike Peverill (founder of Pev's Paintball) would saction such a statement or affiliation.  The issue is whether or not this site is notable.  According to the guidelines, this site doesn't qualify as notable.  1. it hasn't been the subject of national or international media attention, 2. it isn't a forum with more than 5,000 members that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community (www.pbnation.com has over 200,000 members), and 3. it doesn't have an Alexa rating above 10,000 (the site has a rating of 1,607,664).  The other three sites I mention above all have higher Alexa ratings (pbnation has a rating of 16,057 for example).  As for the self-promotion argument - Alexa's entry for the site states "This website is a home to cross-platform clan called XoA Online".65.28.204.25 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Steve (Photographer for Paintball 2Xtremes Magazine)
 * User's second edit. Please give proof that you are affiliated with the magazine before making the claim. Thank you. - User:VanillaX
 * PS: Keep in mind that Alexa will usually only display information for the main site. Go to xmission.com on Alexa and it will pull up a webhosting site despite the fact that 75% of the traffic comes from the infamous "Best Page in the Universe". Keep that in mind, Alexa, while great for overall traffic statistics, isn't always the strongest source on determining what content is held under the name of the domain. Also, check the site again. Die Hard Paintball links over to Pev's Paintball, saying it's a "fantastic" site, why would Mike Peverill be against that? No reason at all. No where on the homepage does it make the statement you claim. Also, you said Warpig was started on 1987. While it may have started then, I doubt it had a website at that point. According to your notability standards, PBNation (which I would agree is notable) has an Alexa ranking that is not notable, despite the fact that is has made such an impact. If you like your other sites so much, take the time to write the articles on them and let other people write the articles on the sites they feel are notable.
 * PPS: Before saying this site is not notable, let's take another look around the internet shall we? Look at the Alexa ranking for Force of Nature (which I would also agree with you, that site is notable, I'm just pointing out these statistics to show you that the site in question is as well). It's ranking is 502,806 (which is below your standard of 10,000, and, since we both agree your site is notable, means we should probably look at this with a different standard), with no daily or weekly ranking, which, since you may or may not know how Alexa works, means absolutely no one with Alexa technology has gone to that site in a week. This site's daily and weekly Alexa rankings, however, are existant and fairly high. So, according to your standards, if one is notable, and this site has had more traffic than it in the recent past, you should probably acknowledge that either both are notable or both are not. Saying that A = Notable and even though B > A, B =/= notable does not make sense.   - User:VanillaX
 * Comment - I've already voted, I'm just making a quick edit to put my name in instead of my IP, thanks. - User:Balthazar6669
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic, vanity. --Improv 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Stormie 12:15, 1 January 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.