Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
introduce statistics to arguement
encyclopedias and notability
Line 77: Line 77:
P.S. to Dreamguy<br />
P.S. to Dreamguy<br />
Nikoli '''owns''' most of the puzzles it publishes but I seriously doubt that they actually '''created''' most of them "in the first place". [[User:Gatorgirl7563|Gatorgirl7563]] ([[User talk:Gatorgirl7563|talk]]) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Nikoli '''owns''' most of the puzzles it publishes but I seriously doubt that they actually '''created''' most of them "in the first place". [[User:Gatorgirl7563|Gatorgirl7563]] ([[User talk:Gatorgirl7563|talk]]) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Encyclopedias are FULL of things that I, not only never heard of, but never even DREAMED could exist. So how can Wikipedians reject something just because it is relatively unknown. It would be unexcuseably egotistical to say that because something is not commonly known it is unimportant.

It can not be denied that with Janko.at containing so many different puzzle types (many of which are VERY popular), and with me putting those puzzle names on the Janko.at’s Wikipedia page, a lot of traffic will be directed to Janko.at’s Wiki page and from there will be directed to Janko.at itself, which WILL make it notable by anyone's standards.<br />
PROOF: A few '''days''' ago when I first began my Janko.at article, the "site access counter" said 1,76'''8''',792. This morning that same counter said 1,76'''9''',748, a traffic increase of nearly 1000. As I write this the counter says 1,769,'''9'''85, more than 200 more visitors. I don't believe that '''all''' the traffic was because of me, but it is a coincidence that supports my claim. [[User:Gatorgirl7563|Gatorgirl7563]] ([[User talk:Gatorgirl7563|talk]]) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:09, 1 June 2009

Janko.at (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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]
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.
Comment Would you please have a reliable source for the number of 1,768,792 visitors that you cite ? SyG (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]

What if it is notable because of the incredible amount of puzzles it has?
I checked alexa.com and janko.at gets more traffic than nikoli. In fact, every possible option says that Janko.at is more popular than Nikoli.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/janko.at+www.nikoli.co.jp%2Fen+www.nikoli.com
Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoli is the official site of a company that made most of these puzzles in the first place. It doesn't put too much online as it sells printed puzzles. And the incredible amount of puzzles it has makes it fun, but not notable for encyclopedic purposes. DreamGuy (talk)
The symbol " ₪ " will act as a link to Alexa's page on that particular website.

Why Janko.at is better than Nikoli:

Janko.at Vs. Nikoli
Judging Parameters

Janko.at

Nikoli.com

Nikoli.co.jp/en

Traffic Rank 159,049 484,013 620,138
Speed 0.681 sec
(10% of sites are faster)
3.751 sec
(72% of sites are faster)
0.526 sec
(6% of sites are faster)
Sites Linking In 251 40 211
3 Month Avg pageviews/user 5.2 4 2.5

Janko.at has more puzzles than both Nikoli's combined (even if the two sites have completely different puzzles) and they are all free.
The only real difference between Janko.at and Nikoli is that one is a "personal" page and one a "professional" page. Being the official page of a company is the only thing Nikoli has over Janko.at.
Janko.at is more popular, faster, and has more puzzles. Both sites are equally informative with their puzzles, having rules, explanations, and guides for each type, but Janko.at has exponentially more puzzle types and more puzzles for each type, and does not try to sell you anything.
If you halved the amount of traffic Janko.at recieved, it would still be more than what Nikoli gets because you can only play the same 10 example puzzles so many times. I'm not even sure that Nikoli.co.jp has any puzzles and if it does they aren't easy to find

My point is, if Janko.at is not notable and worthy enough to meet Wiki's standards, than neither is Nikoli. Since Nikoli is a crappy free puzzle site, if it wasn't an official site of a company then it would not meet Wiki standards, but Janko.at, which excels Nikoli in every way is Wiki worthy.
P.S. to Dreamguy
Nikoli owns most of the puzzles it publishes but I seriously doubt that they actually created most of them "in the first place". Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Encyclopedias are FULL of things that I, not only never heard of, but never even DREAMED could exist. So how can Wikipedians reject something just because it is relatively unknown. It would be unexcuseably egotistical to say that because something is not commonly known it is unimportant.

It can not be denied that with Janko.at containing so many different puzzle types (many of which are VERY popular), and with me putting those puzzle names on the Janko.at’s Wikipedia page, a lot of traffic will be directed to Janko.at’s Wiki page and from there will be directed to Janko.at itself, which WILL make it notable by anyone's standards.
PROOF: A few days ago when I first began my Janko.at article, the "site access counter" said 1,768,792. This morning that same counter said 1,769,748, a traffic increase of nearly 1000. As I write this the counter says 1,769,985, more than 200 more visitors. I don't believe that all the traffic was because of me, but it is a coincidence that supports my claim. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]