Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun Trivia

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. Walton^talk 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Trivia[edit]

Delete - Article looks like spam. All information (and there's a ton of it) is taken direct from the website. There is no independent source for any of the information, no indication that it meets any of the WP:WEB notability guidelines, and tags pointing out that the info reads like an ad and lacks sources have been ignored by active editors, who appear to be affiliated with the site. I don't think this meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and the tags haven't led to any improvement, so now putting up for deletion. DreamGuy 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails W:WEB. I'd have said give the editors more time but if they've ignored tags I guess they've had their chance. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search for news coverage and the like, but nothing came up. Unless someone comes up with some reliable sources... this is a delete for lacking notability. Polenth 02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep based on the age (websites from 1994 are pretty much the foundation of the internet). Assuming that factlet can be verified, that is. The article is highly advertorial in tone, and way too long, and contains too much trivia. >Radiant< 11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how age gives it any sort of notability. In fact, in this case that might be a stronger argument that it's not notable. It's been around since at least 1996 (according to archive.org -- though I don't know if it's the same site or just one that was there at the time under a different owner) and never managed to get any reliable third party sources etc. (per WP:WEB to acknowledge its existence? Wow. And the Wikipedia article itself only sprung up a few months ago. DreamGuy 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's age is fairly notable, if true, because most sites die only after a few years. Eleven years is a long time, especially on the internet. --Android Mouse 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- now that I look back on this comment, I wonder where I got the number 11 from. Maybe I misread it as from 1996, or my poor math skills are shining through :p --Android Mouse 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sites in the 10ish years age bracket. It really isn't that rare. We'd have thousands of articles on minor personal homepages if age made a site notable. Polenth 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, we have a thing here called WP:WEB we have to follow. This article pretty clearly doesn't meet it as it stands now, as it has no reliable outside references, etc. If the age of a site made something notable, that'd be in WP:WEB, wouldn't it? Why do we have two people here just kind of making up their own reasons off the top of their heads what makes something notable when we have criteria to determine that? DreamGuy 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two non-trivial reviews, both from magazines: [1] [2]. The traffic ranking of ~5k isn't that bad either [3] --Android Mouse 20:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links are exactly the definition of trivial reviews as listed on WP:WEB "Trivial coverage, such as [...] 3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site" -- those aren't real articles, they are just extremely brief summaries, a paragraph or less. In order to meet WP:WEB you need to find "newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" that aren't short clips. DreamGuy 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site", it's also a review. --Android Mouse 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that we should have articles on all websites over a certain age. Rather, I claim that being (one of) the first major sites to do something in particular is probably a sign of notability. >Radiant< 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight keep. per radiant. --Android Mouse 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, spam, bacon, eggs and spam. Groupthink 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source there is in the article shouldn't even be a source, which is the website itself. There needs to be reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Furthermore, it's written like an ad, which isn't allowed. (→zel zany - fish) 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deklete - unsourced spam. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pink as the canned spam, but possibly the subject is notable regardless of how crappy the article is -- anybody voting Keep should scrounge around and just fix it. (Note: I've been on the internet almost every day since 1994, and I've never heard of this site until now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs)

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 talkin a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.