Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danbooru
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 of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online community? Jonny-mt 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possible counterarguments exist, hence the (admittedly strange step) of nominating your own article that has been marked for deletion...and then commenting on it. I originally went fact-finding in an effort to build a defense for the article, but after reading the appropriate guidelines as to what is and isn't note-worthy, I found myself a bit lost. So if you'd indulge me, I'd like to post what would have originally been the defense here.
STATS:
- Google Test: about 30,900
- Googlefight
- danbooru vs. 4chan: 4chan (29,500 vs. 339,000)
- May 2005 (last complete month)
- Unique Visitors: 71,365
- Number of Visits: 193,804 (approx. 2.7 times per visitor)
- Hits: 23,137,934
- Total Bandwidth: 138,32 GB
The above are valid as of 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OTHER NOTABLES:
- Open-source, constantly evolving software
- Tags allow for invisible, automatic child tag creation, synonym/misspelling resolution, and so on--such changes are based on user input and consensus
- One IP-One Vote system allows for the rating of posts and attached comments, which affects whether or not they show up in default view based on individual user settings.
Of course, this all may be moot with the site owner posting about the possible closure in the last 24 hours, but I'd rather hear the thoughts of those better-versed than I in the workings of Wiki. Jonny-mt 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete; mediocre alexa rank of 72,000, site now closed. — brighterorange (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither the site or the software is notable, although the software is pretty nice. No reliable third-party sources. Kotepho 15:31, 21 June 2006 (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.