Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Goldfish Network


 * 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. --Cel e stianpower háblame 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The Goldfish Network
An article about an individual server that "services as many as thirty-five paying and non paying customers." NN. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A whole 35 people, huh? Goodness, Wikipedia had better watch its back. Especially when it gets so much traffic as to have no Alexa rank at all. One computer just isn't encyclopedic and WP:ISNOT an indiscrimate collection of information. - Splash talk 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A site with no Alexa ranking means absolutely nothing. While there's question as to the value of the content here, I'd hate to think you would delete this article because of lack of Alexa rank. Alexa gathers information from people who have the Alexa toolbar installed. This toolbar only does two things: Provide data to Alexa, and perform second-rate searches. It's an information gathering software, which gets similar programs to be labelled as spyware. I would take it as a credit if no one who visited a site I owned was foolish enough to have that thing installed. Just my two cents. - 70.31.155.217 02:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the Alexa toolbar is spyware is irrelevant. What does matter is that is a random sample of users and thus can be used as a basis for statistical analysis. It is also not the only criterion used when we consider articles about web sites (see WP:WEB). Unfortunately your server is not notable outside of the people who use it. Not only that, it's not third-party verifiable, which is Wikipedia policy. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not a random sample of users its a sample of users stupid or ignorant enough to consider downloading a toolbar that is widely considered spyware in the first place. Plugwash 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Splash. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- anetode ¹ ² ³ 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no violation of Wikipedia standards. Also, the Alexa rank is a biased ranking system and should have no weight in the decision of an article's inclusion.
 * Well, I highly doubt the information in the article is verifiable, which would be violating a Wikipedia policy. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 06:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted, or why anyone should have such strong objections to having it as a part of Wikipedia? What harm does having it do?  I don't see much explanation as to why other readers feel it should be deleted, and see no reason for that to happen.24.226.55.169 05:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a fair call, really. Sometime we do tend to be so brief as to bite.  If you'll either get an account or tell me your regular account, I'm happy to discuss it on your talk page.  Conversly you can click the "t" after my name. -  brenneman (t) (c)  05:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like an attempt at self-promotion, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Friday (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe it's not harmful, but having it should give Wikipedia an advantage rather than no disadvantages. The page claims to be popular, yet not only the Alexa rank fails; Google also shows a grand total of 4 hits to this page. Unverifiable/advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 07:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. PJM 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Undecided You know that they’re probably right and it shouldn’t be there, violation or not. Wikipedia is not a repository of all human knowledge, just of things that concern a large number of people. However, articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_comics are allowed to exist, which seems to me very similar to the Goldfish article (if only more extensive). Is it just because this site has a larger readership that they should be allowed inclusion? If I made a wiki page for MY comics, would that be allowed to stay? How many readers/users is the right amount? Or what about this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podtacular ? They claim a mere 1500 listeners. Wikipedia better watch out. (By the way, their "Alexa ranking" can not be determined, because their main website is a sub-domain of blogspot). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.30.246 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Dinosaur Comics meets guidelines set in WP:COMIC. Podtacular gets 151 unique Google results from a wide range of sites, indicating its widespread acceptance. The same cannot be said for the Goldish Network. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't believe the "Goldish Network" would turn up many hits at all. Try doing a Google search on the Goldfish Network's podcast "The Tank." Many, many results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.109.165 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16 results (excluding the domain "thegoldish.net") is not "many many" in my mind. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know that 16 isn't 'many many'. 16 is, for example, many many times to be stabbed in the throat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.109.165 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.20.226 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Always good when an article includes specific evidence of the non-notability of its subject, it makes life so much easier :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepI used this page to determine the validity of the server in question. Also, you guys are pretty mean and pathetic to spend your time trying to get a tiny little article kicked off some boring website. I also used the article to check out the history of the server. So...yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.178.87 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One tiny little NN article is okay. Millions of tiny little NN articles are not.  Delete. Devotchka 21:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Godspeed, anonymous army, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The other delete voters summed this up about as nicely as I could hope to, so I shall not try. Lord Bob 19:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a Web directory. Unless someone can show that the site meets the requirements at WP:WEB or is otherwise an appropriate addition to an encyclopedia, delete. --TantalumTelluride 20:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Anybody can set up a server. - mdd4696 23:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 *  I am the author, and I say delete it, because I do not care, and it was only a lark, and I clearly didn't carefully review the requirements. 
 * Delete. As the owner of The GoldFish Network, I can tell you all that this page was clearly created as a joke by someone who uses my server. It's gotten way out of hand. As per guidelines, there's no reason for this to be on Wikipedia. You're right, it's not a web directory, and the network isn't that much different from other hosting services. However, I agree with those that are against Alexa being a guideline. If most major anti-spyware vendors will remove Alexa upon detection, I would tend to think this makes the results produced by Alexa a little biased. Biased towards those who aren't tech-savvy enough to know what it is to start with, and not even smart enough to run some kind of anti-spyware check. Regardless, delete this. If y'all feel so strongly that it's not "encyclopedic enough", then get rid of it. - Arobar 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Why not, there is tons of things on this site that have little relevance to anyone but stay on ... this server is relavnt to its hostees and the hundreds of people who browse their sites. That has to be more people then an article about say "The Burial Topography and effect on social memory in bronze age wales" would recieve. I.
 * Delete per arobar. Newyorktimescrossword 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable subject. Since anon thinks our website is boring, I'm sure the non-notable article would be happy elsewhere. Also, to those that think the non-notable articles we have here are a justification for including another non-notable article, I suggest the opposite is true.  Let's delete the other offending articles instead of further watering down wikipedia. Johntex\talk 08:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete NE. (Not encyclopedic). Marcus22 13:21, 28 October 2005 (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.