Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadbandreports (0th nomination)

Wikipedia is not web directory. Mikkalai 00:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Should we get rid of eBay, Amazon.com, Pets.com? BroadbandReports is extremely notable. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, cool down, don't overstretch it. That we have at article on J. Edgar Hoover and Doris Day doesn't mean we must have one for each every John E. Doe. That's what voting is for. For me it is not notable even with its 960,000 google hits, which turn out to be as "many" as 513, if "ghosts" are excluded. And the article is more like marketing pitch. Mikkalai 01:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alexa rank 10,645. Forum alone has 11 million posts from almost 100,000 users. Not extremely ad-ish, but could probably still use some Cleanup. Niteowlneils 02:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Broadbandreports is the first Google hit for the term "DSL". If that's not notability, especially given that DSL is so widely used, I don't know what is. -- Bobdoe 02:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Send to clean up: It's a pretty central site for broadband in the US. (Note the American content, here.)  However, Wikipedia is not a web guide.  This is notable for being pioneering and an industry leader, IMO, and so needs to be cleaned of its POV and built up for an accurate description of its content. Geogre 02:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potentially interesting. Mark Richards 19:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Related comment (to be moved to Talk after this vote is done)
 * A couple editors have used the phrase "Wikipedia is not a web directory/guide" -- Looking at What Wikipedia is not, I see nothing which confirms that this phrase is policy nor a valid reason for deletion by itself. "Mere collection of ... links" is mentioned, but precendent (eBay, Amazon.com, Pets.com, Neopets, etc.) says that notable sites deserve articles, if they are expanded beyond "mere links". I propose that we not use that phrase anymore. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Now I recall, the first time I saw this phrase, it was in relation to some kind of List of websites that do this and that. In this context it was perfectly valid. But I agree, the usage of the phrase shifted somehow. Nevertheless it bears kind of truth. "Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages". How about that? one must be somehow notable to be listed here, be it a person, a business, or a webpage. That what the voting here is about. It was silly of me, I admit, to think that Broadbandreports is not notable, but no harm is done: you kicked my ass. Mikkalai 04:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What about the first #4, "Wikipedia is not a link repository." That seems pretty synonymous to me. Niteowlneils 01:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It says right after that "See #11, 12, 13 in the next section." which refer to "mere collections of ... links." - hardly true in this case. -- Netoholic @ 01:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep; This site originally started as DSLreports.com. It was first launched with the intention of reporting the service quality of DSL providers in the United States.  When Cable was brought online, they changed the name to "Broadbandreports" although, "DSLreporta.com" still points to their new site. --AllyUnion 03:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-known site (I've never had cause to surf there myself, but I still recognised the name instantly from often hearing it mentioned in discussions of ISPs), and the Alexa rank is imho high enough to make an article acceptable. &mdash;Stormie 04:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 15:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve --G3pro 17:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)