Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janko.at: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:08, 31 May 2009

Janko.at

Contested WP:PROD. No sources are cited, getting a "website of the week" award does not confer notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even if the website that gave Janko.at the award has had more than 25 million visitors Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any references, Alexa ranking about 158K. Also, it could be G12, the puzzles section is an exact copy of Janko.at - Puzzles, but that isn't saying much, since it's just a listing of all the games available. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only so far! I'm not done yet. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janko.at has recieved other honors besides "Website of the Week", I just have a hard time understanding/translating them because I know very little German. Since 17 October 1999, Janko.at has had 1,768,792 visitors. Almost every month since the beginning of 2008, Janko.at's creators have added at least 100, but usually about 200 new puzzles of various types. That's not including photos, recipes, freeware and adventure game walkthroughs. It is an AMAZING site for puzzle fans. It's a hidden treasure trove that I just want to get the word out about.

Please just give me a few day of working on the article before you propose it for deletion. I only just started on it. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD period is seven days from the time of nomination, so you've got some time, but it's really going to need some reliable sources if it's to be kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The majority of deletion discussions run for seven days, so you will have at least that much time to find and add reliable, published sources to the article to demonstrate that this website passes the General Notability Guideline for inclusion, and/or the inclusion guideline for web-based content. -- saberwyn 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources as to notability show up. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are zero sources. The article reads like a press release and the site is not even in English. meshach (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: virtually no prominence at all. Alexius08 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time. I've known about janko.at for quite a while. I find it to be a great site. It, however, doesn't yet pass notability requirements to have an article here. The only links provided as sources do nothing to show any sort of notability, and I compared the site traffic reports at Alexa.com (not ultra-dependable, but OK for a rough idea) and compared it to a site that just barely was notable here for an article and the traffic was about 1/3 of it, which seem to suggest that it's not that we are missing sources covering it but that the world at large hasn't recognized it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Delete''': virtually no [[WP:N|prominence]] at all. [[User:Alexius08|Alexius08]] ([[User talk:Alexius08|talk]]) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per reasons above. [[User:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b>]] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">([[User talk:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">t</b>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">c</b>]])</sup> 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' at this time. I've known about janko.at for quite a while. I find it to be a great site. It, however, doesn't yet pass notability requirements to have an article here. The only links provided as sources do nothing to show any sort of notability, and I compared the site traffic reports at Alexa.com (not ultra-dependable, but OK for a rough idea) and compared it to a site that just barely was notable here for an article and the traffic was about 1/3 of it, which seem to suggest that it's not that we are missing sources covering it but that the world at large hasn't recognized it. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)