Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janko.at
- 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. Jamie☆S93 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- Delete - The site is noting special, it clearly fails the Notability test. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:27, 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]
- Delete and salt No reliable sources for this non-notable website. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol " ₪ " will act as a link to Alexa's page on that particular website.
Why Janko.at is better than Nikoli:
| Judging Parameters ₪ | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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]
- Comment. Those statistics are compelling for choosing which website to advertise on but not if this website is notable. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. Whilst Janko.at may very well get more traffic than other sites, I fail to see how this proves anything in relation to Wikipedia. I assume you're basically claiming other stuff exists? Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the basis of that claim was "other stuff exists" but that point's main message was that Janko.at is better than that "other stuff (that) exists", therefore it should be allowed to remain.Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Deliberate comparison to far less popular sites doesn't make this one notable. Alexius08 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." I think it's borderline acceptable, but it's unique. I say, "Let it stay." It'll help people find popular and obscure puzzles, authentic German recipes, and words and phrases for that rare dialect (Wienerisch?) that they're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.65.49 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But is it Wikipedia's job to help people find popular puzzles and German recipes? No. Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To find puzzles... probably not, but to find recipes... well, Wiki does have a cookbook. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean at Wikibooks? Well, feel free to add recipes there, rather than in this separate project. Greg Tyler (t • c) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To find puzzles... probably not, but to find recipes... well, Wiki does have a cookbook. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability established through multiple non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everything above me. Obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:19, 6 June 2009 (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.