Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDR Freak (3rd nomination)
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. --Coredesat 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Non-notable website, using entirely self-published sources, thus making it unverifiable. Chardish 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- Alexa rank of 95K, putting it just above the 100K non-reliable threshold. Primary "Link in"s from Alexa are Google and WP. On the other hand, this Salon article links to it as a definition for "Dance Dance Revolution".--SarekOfVulcan 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it is not entirely self-sourced - three of those sources are external to DDRFreak, but mirrored on their site for convenience.--SarekOfVulcan 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't aware that there was some sort of non-reliability threshold for Alexa. Could you point me to the guideline that specifies that? - Chardish 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I found it at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa_ratings.--SarekOfVulcan 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have misread that. It is saying that Alexa ratings below a certain rank are not reliable, not that the websites themselves are not reliable. In other words, it's saying that there's no guarantee that a website with rank 125,000 is really more popular than a website with rank 130,000. In fact, the sentence immediately above that statement says that Alexa ratings are not reliable barometers of notability. - Chardish 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no, I didn't misread reliability for notability -- I was just pointing out that it was quite low, but not actually into the we-have-no-idea zone.--SarekOfVulcan 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have misread that. It is saying that Alexa ratings below a certain rank are not reliable, not that the websites themselves are not reliable. In other words, it's saying that there's no guarantee that a website with rank 125,000 is really more popular than a website with rank 130,000. In fact, the sentence immediately above that statement says that Alexa ratings are not reliable barometers of notability. - Chardish 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I found it at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa_ratings.--SarekOfVulcan 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom unless reliable sources can be found. Moogy (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & redirect to Dance_Dance_Revolution#Internet_fandom. This article lacks sources and looks like the site map. -- Kl4m T C 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per nom; while article is not entirely self-sourced, permission to reproduce the copyrighted articles mirrored on the article's site is not clearly defined. They should link to the original source (or, at the very least, an appropriate bibliographic entry); as I recall, there may be potential issues with linking to copyrighted media such as this (see WP:C). At the very least, those links should probably go. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 06:29, 27 September 2007 (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.