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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FantasyLiterature.net[edit]

FantasyLiterature.net (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View log)

Nonnotable Web site, less than a year old. Only 45 discrete ghits, all message boards, directories, and the like. No apparent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has much to do with the reasons for deletion given above, but I thought I'd point out that the username of the article's author, Kahooper, suggests an identity with Katherine Hooper, the creator of the Web site in question. Deor (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the discussion page (sorry): I authored the topic FantasyLiterature.net and I'm the owner of the website. Until about a month ago, we were on the top page (and usually the top spot after Wikipedia) for all related searches. We received most of our hits from Google. Unfortunately, I submitted a sitemap to Google that somehow knocked us completely off for about 3 weeks. We are finally back in the index, but have not yet reestablished our top page position. Since your main complaint seems to be that we are "unnotable" due to lack of Google hits, I wanted to explain that. I'm not sure if there is a way to prove what our position on Google was a month ago. I now have Google analytics tracking the page, but I set that up after the sitemap problem. I have a Sitemeter account, but it is the free version and does not track beyond the last 100 visitors, I believe. If you know of a way to determine our Google hits before we had this problem, I encourage you to research that, or tell me how to so that I can direct you to the source. Thank you for your consideration. Kahooper (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper 2/9/08

New comments: Yes, I am the author of the article AND the website.

• Delete. Blatant advertising for a non-notable website, and a very clear conflict of interests. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think it's possible you misunderstood the intent of the other editor. Google hits and ranking do not establish notability. I believe the other editor was noting that there was insufficient secondary information publicly available listed on a searchsite like Google to even begin a proper determination of notability. If you can establish that this website meets wikipedia guidelines like WP:N Notability, WP:RS Reliable Sources, and WP:V Verifiability, then consensus on the value of the article could change. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Let's be reasonable. Sufficient hits & ranking do establish notability in any common-sense way; notability is a guideline, and intended to be interpreted flexible. The question is whether this is sufficiently high ranking, and nothing is demonstrated to that effect.DGG (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that hits & ranking, of themselves, do not establish notability. It's important to determine the nature and quality of hits & ranking. A website could easily have a good whitehat (or blackhat) SEO/SEM strategy that includes multiple crosslinks with other websites (maybe even their own) which would increase their hitcounts and ranking. However, having several first page Google listings or hundreds of hits still says nothing about the notability of the website itself, only that they did sufficient footwork in their advertising and marketing campaign to increase their search engine visibility. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak KeepWarrior4321^talkContribs 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Hits & Ranking do not establish notability. 'WIKI CLEANUP is in the need here, not deletion.[reply]

• Keep Accurate description of the site, as opposed to "blatant advertising" and technical difficulties which have affected its ranking should be taken into consideration. Author was honest and did not attempt to hide her identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.46.200 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) — 72.38.46.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - 1) Accurate website description. 2) Technical difficulties submitting a sitemap to Google. 3) Google hits and/or ranking. 4) Author's honesty and identity. Summary - None of these establish the notability of the website or address the issues with reliable sources. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. How or why is this site notable? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:40, 17 February 2008 (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.