Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spraci


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Spraci
Article reads as advertising/psma/possible vanity as well. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 14:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * what about Eventful, Upcoming and others that have put pages on here? ... spraci predates those by a decade...  It was seeing those other pages that made me think of adding a page about spraci here.  surely if this is spam then those other pages are spam too. (or is there some kind of double-standard here?)  ...fair is fair!...  I do understand that it is important to prevent spam but please be fair in your judgments!  All rules should apply equally to everyone.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMD (talk • contribs) 2006-08-03T14:58:22  (UTC)
 * Note: multi-line unsigned comment reformatted to standard format — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. MichaelMD, if you feel the other articles are equally non-notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Kafziel 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For further clarification on why this is not notable yet the others are, see the Alexa comparison here. Upcoming.org is ranked around 8,000th. Spraci is ranked around 148,000th. Notability is not determined by age alone. My eBay account has been around longer than half the websites out there, but it doesn't get many hits. Kafziel 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Alexa Test is not one of the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So? The Google test isn't an official part of any criteria, either. It's still a reasonable gauge. Kafziel 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So giving the results of running the Alexa Test is not an explanation of why something does not satisfy the notability criteria. And as Google Test explains, the Google Test is not a reasonable gauge.  Counting hits is not research. Uncle G 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, give me a break. I'm trying to give a new user a pointer. If you actually read the page you keep posting, you'll also see that "Some editors use the Alexa ranking to determine whether Wikipedia should have an article, arguing that we should certainly have articles on top 100 sites, possibly have articles on top 1,000 sites, and usually not have articles for sites not in the top 100,000." I'm one of those users. Absolutely nowhere did I say it was an official criterion, just that if he wants to see why one is more popular than the other, that's where he can take a look. I also told him that he's welcome to nominate all those other articles for deletion. So how about you get off your high horse and let me try to give a new guy some help? Kafziel 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are giving a new user a wholly erroneous pointer. Explaining that an article is not notable because a web site ranks low in the Alexa Test is an entirely false explanation, given that that isn't a criterion for notability.  If you yourself are using the Alexa Test to determine notability, then you are applying a test that isn't a criterion, and (as discussed extensively on Alexa Test and Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)) shouldn't be a criterion.  Please stop.  You aren't actually helping the new editor at all.  You are giving xem a false explanation.  Uncle G 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you think this site is notable? You think it should be kept? Of course not; not even the original author thinks so. So what, exactly, is your point? The website fails WP:WEB, and Alexa's findings are in line with that. It's a pretty common test, not just something I pulled out of my ass, and it never hurts for users to have more information. If you don't like it, fine. Don't use it. But it's out there, and I have every right to tell him about it. And, yes, the link to WP:WEB should have been posted by the nominator. I thought he did, so I didn't include it in my original post. This was meant to be information in addition to WEB. Kafziel 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB.  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's an advertisement. -- Whpq 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok Dark Shikari and Uncle G thanks for posting the WP:WEB link ... it brings some sanity to this ... I am not independant of spraci so I would accept that as a fair reason for it not being accepted (without providing other references) If that is the real reason I'll accept that. regarding the "because it's an advertisement" stuff: I could say that those other pages are too and that kind of comment in this situation just gives a bad impression. (an impression that "size of funding" influences "notability", which is bound to upset people) The WP:WEB page Dark Shikari and Uncle G mention explains the criteria so why not just point me to that right from the start?
 * Mentioning the notability criteria that they are applying is one of the things that we indeed encourage people to do when nominating articles for deletion. Uncle G 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also recommend reading User:Uncle G/On notability and the Guide to deletion. This isn't a vote.  It is a discussion.  People's opinions are not set in stone.  If you can cite multiple non-trivial independently sourced published works, or show that any of the other WP:WEB criteria are satisfied, and thereby demonstrate that an article can be written based upon those sources, you can change editor's opinions. Uncle G 18:54, 3 August 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.