Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megafoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Megafoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable website, an Alexa rank of 31,304 is not an assertion of notability. No independent, non-trivial sources, no hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The alexa rank was not intended as an assertion of notability, merely as a factual statement regarding the website.
- I contest your belief that this article does not meet Notability standards. Due to the recent release of this software, it would be difficult to find credible sources discussing the software. So, a lack of credible sources does not mean the subject lacks Notability, that is causation. Furthermore, due to the nature of Search Engine Optimization and Technology in general, a product/idea/method can become significant and important in said realm very quickly. Credible sources often take months/years to write about new innovations, but that does not make the product/idea/method lack Notability until the credible sources write on the subject. Search engine results page is still lacking any information on SERP Tracking, although it has been widely used for years. It was in my research on the subject that I discovered multiple software for SERP Tracking with very distinct and important differences. Before addding this section, I felt it was needed to address these variations in a wikipedia format first. Finally, I think that the controversy section in this article agrees with my statement Notability in Wikipedia.Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia articles are about subjects that are already proven notable, not subjects that may become notable at a later time, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When there are a lack of non-trivial, secondary sources but future notability is a distinct possibility, normally the article is deleted until coverage becomes available or if appropriate, rolled into a bigger-picture, but already notable topic. 2 says you, says two 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I request a checkuser? This person seem's to know a lot about wikipedia guidelines without making a single contribution.Bsanders246 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was logged out, sorry. Also, IP addresses are usually dynamically applied, and change every few days, or sometimes several times a day, please assume good faith. 2 says you, says two 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the WP guideline. I'm also aware of the use of sock puppets on WP, which is why I requested a checkuser. It was not intended to be accusatory or confrontational. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was logged out, sorry. Also, IP addresses are usually dynamically applied, and change every few days, or sometimes several times a day, please assume good faith. 2 says you, says two 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I request a checkuser? This person seem's to know a lot about wikipedia guidelines without making a single contribution.Bsanders246 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia articles are about subjects that are already proven notable, not subjects that may become notable at a later time, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When there are a lack of non-trivial, secondary sources but future notability is a distinct possibility, normally the article is deleted until coverage becomes available or if appropriate, rolled into a bigger-picture, but already notable topic. 2 says you, says two 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all of the valid reasons outlined by the nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article for a website with no particular claim to encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable website, article is primarily to promote the site. Original author has a history of posting promotional articles, all of which are under AfD presently. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a great piece of SEO software and attempt to make an article on it? I haven't made any articles on wikipedia before, so i'm still trying to learn what is allowed and what isn't. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of trying to promote things. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the text of your articles are promotional in nature. Perhaps you should read this page and this page before you create any new articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a great piece of SEO software and attempt to make an article on it? I haven't made any articles on wikipedia before, so i'm still trying to learn what is allowed and what isn't. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of trying to promote things. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.