Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitchseekers


 * 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, and commend the authors/maintainers etc. for their remarkably good-natured comments. -Splash talk 23:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Glitchseekers
Vanity +/- nn. Ifnord 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC) god_gs 6:56, 19 October 2005 (CST) im not sure on this talking, but i am the one who submitted this article. I am currently going through my knowledge of the site and adding more as i go along. I am a staff member of the site (GOD) and have the neccesary authority to mention the site. I am sure that once more members of the GS forum realize this is on wikipedia, they will add their own knowledge. thank you. - god_gs
 * Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 17:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable -- "a relatively small site with around 70 registered members." I think that speaks for itself.-- Captain Disdain 09:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

god_gs 02:22, 20 October 2005 (CST)
 * yea, but it is a good site, and it is growing.

urmomma 02:55, 20 October 2005 (CST)
 * Hello, I'm the main admin/owner of GlitchSeekers and I'm currently adding the History of the site. The site isn't very small, just not many registered users, as we don't know require a user to be registered to use any service or feature on the site. I do request you keep this document up, but I do understand if you want to delete it. I had orginally planned to link from my site to here for information on Glitch Seekers, but its up to you guys.


 * I am co-admin of the site,andi do not understand how you can possibly have any reasonto delete this. Although it may be a small site, as of now, it growing at a rapid rate and will making many advances. I read through the article about reasons for speedy deletion, and I could not find a single reasonon it that correlates with our submission. I ask you to please reconsider the deletion of thissubmission. Thank you. Bloodysaint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.113.184 (talk • contribs) UTC 20:07, 20 October 2005
 * You're entirely correct that it doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion, as a speedy deletion is something that is carried out instantly, without debate. It is, however, a valid candidate for deletion, because it's not a notable site. I hasten to add that that "notable" and "good" are not the same thing; your site may be very good indeed, but to be included in Wikipedia, it must make a significant impression on the world at large (or, more properly in this instance, the gaming community)... and frankly, 70 registered members and 250 unique hits a day is a clear indication that it does not have such an impact. If you guys think that's a lot, I'm sorry, but it really isn't. Also, the article is blatantly unencyclopedic and reads more like an advertisement of your site, which doesn't help things any (though you should not infer from this that if you rewrite it, it will not be deleted). -- Captain Disdain 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, that 70 registered and 250 unique isn't a lot at all, and why I understand if this is deleted, I would understand. I still think its neat having this article up here, but I would understand if it were to be deleted. I'm a little new to Wikipedia, and I'm wondering, would it be ok, if this were to be deleted, if I posted this in my profile as it seems users here have their own little article/profile area. I don't want to break a rule though, that is why I'm asking. Thanks for your time. -urmomma 21:06, 20 October 2005


 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep it is sufficiently notable, with over 250 unigue hits per day. thats a lot. god_gs 03:39, 20 October 2005 (CST)


 * How can we determine what will become significant and what will not. We do not mean to advertise our site. It just comes out that way because all we do is talk about our site. If we talked about the many drawbacks we had and bad things about the site, would that make it seem less like an advertisement. Also, on the note of it not being sufficiently notable, who determines whether something is notable or not. To me, this sight is more than extremely notable because i have contributed the better part of the past 8 months helping to build this site to what it presently is. Many sites do not even come close to making it this far. Isn't that some indication that one day our website will be notable. Bloodysaint
 * How can we determine what will become significant and what will not? Now you're getting it -- we can't. And that's why we don't. In fact, there is an official policy about that: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the site becomes notable, well, at that point someone who is not actually involved with its administration will probably write the article. If the site is not notable, then no article is required. (As for who determines whether or not a site is notable, editors like you and me do. And yes, that often involves quite a bit of debate, but in this instance, when you guys quote as usage statistics of 70 registered users and 250 unique hits per day, and even you yourself admit that the website is not yet notable, it's really pretty easily determined... and in any case, notable gaming sites likes Gamespy, IGN and Adrenaline Vault have Alexa rankings of 1,360, 211 and 19,084, respectively, Glitchseekers gets 5,141,707. My personal blog, which is pretty damn far from notable, is ranked at 2,181,859. I'm sure you can tell the difference. Guys, really -- let it go. If you believe in your site, keep working at it; if it makes it big, trust me, there'll be an article on it. Right now, it's not yet notable. The sooner you accept that and the more realistic a view of where you are now at is, the better your chances of making an impact are.) -- Captain Disdain 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with you on this one. Thanks for clarifying. We will be back in the future, just you wait! lol Have a good one till then. --urmomma 00:33, 22 Oct. 2005


 * 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.