Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steevven1.com


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Steevven1.com
nn website. I prodded it, but the creator (User:Steevven1 removed the prod. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a web directory and this is pretty clear vanity.  ju66l3r 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity page. Also fails WP:WEB. Most google hits for the website come from his advertising. -- Nish kid 64 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete I don't know what "nn" means, but I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. It is objective and informative, and the site gets enough traffic to constitute a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not a web dictionary, but it is supposed to be a collection of all human knowledge, and the background and information about this website should be included. Also, I did remove the "prod," but only because it said "remove this if you disagree with it" or something like that. I didn't mean to do anything wrong. As for Google hits, try typing "awesome videos." the site is the #2 result Please do not delete my article. Steevven1 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: nn = "not notable" as per WP:Notability and more specifically for websites WP:WEB. As for your traffic, you are ranked around 4,000,000 on Alexa and dropping.  Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge.  On the other hand, you did not do anything wrong by removing the prod.  The prod just allows for an uncontested deletion.  Since you deleted it, the deletion requires a 5-day discussion period.  It would be best if within the definitions of WP:WEB and WP:V you could provide a clear argument as to how your site is notable.  ju66l3r 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I will try. Thank you.
 * Delete vanity. User gets smart similar like talking to a parent. Wikipedia is not a parent. See other created articles (also nominated for afd) User:Yy-bo 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could this possibly be Userfied? AgentPeppermint 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, or userfy if the article creator so requests. --Metropolitan90 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Article excerpt The site name originated as the username of the owner on various websites and services when he first began using computers. The name is commonly misread as "Stewen1.com," because the double-v's sometimes appear to be a "w." The owner of the site began to wonder if the site's name was too difficult to remember, and consequently set up three mirror sites, "SexWithYourMom.com," "StevenHKeys.com," and "Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com." "Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com" was canceled in February, 2006. "StevenHKeys.com" was set up to bypass the owner of the site's school's block of the URL "Steevven1.com." "SexWithYourMom.com" and "StevenHKeys.com" are still working mirrors to the site. END User:Yy-bo 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If "userfy" means that I am the source for the article's integrity, then I authorize that. I am the owner of the website. How do I go about "Userfying"? Thank you.
 * Comment No, userfy means that it gets moved out of article space to you userspace. Of course, as Wikipeda is not a free web-host, we'd have to ask how having it there would serve the encyclopedia?  Userfy is appropriate (without active external links), if the site is close to meeting WP:WEB and just needs time for the external coverage to go to press, etc... GRBerry 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article has no evidence or assertion of meeting WP:WEB. GRBerry 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Added I added plenty of evidence for that; please consider retracting your comment. Thanks. Steevven1 06:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources Added Thanks a lot for your help, everyone. I have added 8 sources after reading the WP:WEB, which I believe make it qualify. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. Is my article good enough to stay yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steevven1 (talk • contribs).
 * Not yet What we are looking for is multiple independent (so the site, you, and pages you have written don't count), reliable sources (so Wikipedia pages, Myspace, and humorlinks.com don't count).  That last triggered firewall alerts when I tried to go to it, so I'm not going to it or willing to count it as a citation.  GRBerry 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll be working on it over the next couple of days. I think I can make it a qualifying article. Steevven1 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More Sources/Links I added several more sources and links to prove notability. Would it help if I provided monthly traffic information? Steevven1 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable, vanity. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Not notable. Couldn't find anything that would establish the site's notablity. The 4,000,000+ ranking on alexa doesn't help either.  The Bethling  02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable and WP:VAIN. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 5 September 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.