Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BluejackQ


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BluejackQ
A failure of WP:WEB. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for bluejackq.com:  225,452.  Had a significant reach when the website was founded, since then has dropped off significantly.  Stubbleboy 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:WEB does not specify that the media interest must be recent. Mahahahaneapneap 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, in a a Google search for Bluejacking, the top two pages listed are from BluejackQ. A search for Bluejack gives two pages from BluejackQ as well. Mahahahaneapneap 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - this article up for deletion is not about Bluejacking in general as a process, it is about the website BluejackQ specifically.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that it is the largest website on the subject. Mahahahaneapneap 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Alexa says the site had 30,668 people visit the site today. The article is still in it's early days and therefore should be kept Mike 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When 225,000 websites have more than 30,000 hits a day, that tells me 30,000 hits isn't that high a number relative to other websites. Fan-1967 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:WEB says nothing about the number of hits a site must receive. Mahahahaneapneap 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a member of the forums for 3 years now i must agree that yes, the forums and website don't get as many views as it once did, but it's adapting to a change in interests of the general public and untill that change is complete, i think we should keep the article and discuss deletion at a later stage.Rick-E 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Ricke26 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per above Valoem   talk  19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: the media links show it passes WP:WEB. Go to reference three and see for yourself. Batmanand | Talk 10:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.227.65 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. How is that constructive to the article. I think we should just ignore his view. He didn't even sign it. Mike 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the contrib history - seems to be promoting a competing site. Fan-1967 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see how it satisfies WP:WEB. shotwell 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you please explain how it does not satisfy WP:WEB? As media sources are linked too Mike 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The vast majority of those media sources trivially mention the site in passing or feature an interview with someone from the site. Are any of the articles about the site itself? shotwell 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it satisfies WP:WEB. Adamlonsdale 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found this link to be most convincing in relation to our WP:WEB guidelines.  RFerreira 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Per shotwell's comment above, you might want to review the content at the linked sites. Looks like mostly mentions of the site, rather than articles about it, and all over 2 1/2 years ago. Not sure there's what could be classed as "multiple, non-trivial" reports. Fan-1967 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I purpose that this article is relisted to gain a better consensus. Stubbleboy 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that there is a consensus for keep. Mike 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment With 7 delete and 7 keep you think there is a consensus of keep??? Stubbleboy 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Does an anonymous user saying "it's crap" count as a vote? Mahahahaneapneap 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment ah-ha! Good point. Stubbleboy 22:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment either it's too early for me, or i'm thick. But i only count 5 delete votes :| and 7 keep votes. I'm going to feel dumb if i can't count
 * I get 7 Keep to 6 Delete, but I'd toss one of each ("It's crap" from anon, whose only other contributions are promoting a competing Bluejack forum, and "I've been a forum member for three years and I think we should keep it" from an SPA). That looks like a No Consensus to me. Fan-1967 18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that i would have to agree on the vote of no consensus. Mike 17:09, 5 October 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.