Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trickery.net


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trickery.net
nn website, alexa ranking of 661,736, only 190 unique Google hits -. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, the forum has only 2,500 members, as the article mentions. Delete. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- E ivindt@c 10:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per reasons stated above.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you take this test that the nom cited, and perform it for this somewhat famous company you get 130. So, I think it's safe to say, the test means nothing.  --Rob 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You misused the test. Zoe's search said "start=180" but came up with nothing past 129. Your test said "start=130" and came up with 130-140, but there are plenty more. Fan1967 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No so. Try doing Zoe's test, then simply type "Microsoft" over top the text.  In both cases the number of "non-similiar" results was well under 200 (provided quotation marks are used).  In both cases the actual number of "raw" results was well in excess of the number that Google will allow you to display.  The purpose of my point, is that the test fails to reflect the true number of "unique" results.  Yes, of course, I know there are more results for Microsoft, then that small number.  My point was to show the flaw of the test given by Zoe.  No matter how you do the test, Google will never display more then a thousand results.  The "non-similiar results" (what Zoe called "unique") is a subset of the first thousand results.  For searches with over a thousand "raw" hits, this figure is wortheless.  --Rob 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Added: Feel free to re-do the test from scratch.  Go to Google.  Search for "Microsoft" (be sure to include quotes).  Now, proceed to the very last page of results.  When you get there, you'll see you get the same figure I did.  --Rob 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did just as you said and got far more hits than you claim you got. And even if I did, your comments don't address the notability of trickery.net  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How many "unique" hits did you get for "Microsoft"? As we know, they likley have over a billion pages in Google.  However, the "unique" figure (which is what you're using) is guarenteed to be under one thousand.  My point is that this figure grossly under-represents what's actually out there.  Also, if my comments don't address notability, then how did your original comments about google do so?    --Rob 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 00:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN by the Alexa ranking --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment subject of this article is of similar notability as this. Currently this article is lacking in some detail, but it is still young and I am sure will be filled out.  Internet search engines are not omniscient - despite how you may act as typical Wikipedia power-trippers, you are not experts on this subject; as such you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time and so a simple google or alexa search using a single keyword is utterly pointless - for example did you google searches find this or this or this or this or this or this?  Thats just a few examples from notable international websites, there are lots more outthere.  With time this article will be filled out with more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
 * "despite how you may act as typical Wikipedia power-trippers" &mdash; please be civil. Attacking others who comment here is not going to raise the chances of this article's survival by a smidgen. "you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time" &mdash; we cannot just take your word for it. None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part? Kimchi.sg 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again the point is missed! "trickery.net" is what this "entity" is called now - it has had previous names in the past (e.g. "BY Games"), this is why just searching in google is a pretty poor way to decide if something is important or not.  Maybe, just maybe, if you dont delete the article other users will be able update the article to show its complete history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
 * The article is still editable during this discussion, you can go add in any information that might help save it from deletion. The only thing you can't edit away is the deletion notice at the top of the page &mdash; removing that is a blockable offence. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part?" http://itvibe.com/news/1025/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs)
 * Based on information right from this very link, bygames and trickery.net are 2 totally unrelated entities. Sure, trickery.net was founded as a direct result of bygames' closure, but since "bygames, the Internet Gaming Service Provider (GSP) has today closed its doors", how can it be currently closed (which implies it is non-functioning) and at the same time be operating as trickery.net? Kimchi.sg 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well one could say "The" Nazi party (think Hitler) is officially no more, yet there are still Nazi groups operating. Anyway go ahead and delete it if you want - if you do I feel that you are undermining the very ethos of wikipedia by deciding about what should be said (or not) about things you know next to nothing about, instead of letting those that do know about it provide the information, but that appears to be "the wikipedia way" these days - its a shame its come to this really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - I think that earns the article an automatic delete per Godwin's Law :) -- Hirudo 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB. ergot 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete immediately after this discussion is over. --Slgrandson 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would ask regular Wikipedians to hold fire until some of the more notable members of the Wireplay/ByGames/Trickery community have had a chance to update and expand upon the entry, trickery is indeed only a single community but its formation and community history is a tale of the Dot Com era and the rise and fall of notable GSP's, please do not consider the entry upon the merits of trickery.net alone but on the whole tale (yet to be represented) of its formation and history.. Thank you.  Burundi.
 * The discussion lasts five days. But you're going to need to come up with something besides Since its 2003 launch, trickery.net has grown significantly to aprroximately 2,500 users to let us know what makes this website notable.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, what's the tag for the anon warning again? just for future ref. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's afdanons. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 5 May 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.