This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Upto11.net[edit]

In what way is this article not a clear case of vain website advertising? Is there anything unique about it which makes it notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? If you believe Wikipedia not to be an encyclopaedia anyhow, could this material potentially benefit our readers? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 18:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete on one hand, the Alexa score of 320,513 is respectable (if unspectacular). On the other hand, it seems brand new: 2 different blogs claim it opened on March 7th. I'd say delete for now, give it time to establish itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and also, it's technically currently in Beta. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much Andrew for raising the Alexa webpage ranking comment. In your opinion, what score must a website receive on Alexa in order to be "respectable" enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 20:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • A fair question, though I don't think there's really any one answer. It depends on the site. I'm pretty sure Alexa mostly tracks links and visits, so certain types of sites can have higher Alexa ranks than others of equal notability. In general, though, I think that if a site manages to get itself into the top 300,000 in two days then there's clearly some momentum going. As my vote states, though, I think we should give it a little time to see if it can keep it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the submitter had bothered to read the talk page, he'd notice that I'm not affiliated with the site in any way. So I'm not advertising it. It is brand new, but seems very popular. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this article is based on a message posted to the WP mailing list (I don't have a link, but feel free to append it to this vote). A person affiliated with the project (User:Dsupto11) made a responsible request about promoting this project, and in fact created the article in his user space and not the main article space. TBSDY (the author) isn't affiliated with the site. I think User:Dsupto11 showed responsible "promoting" behaviour, and with a resonable Alexa rank, I believe this article deserves a chance to be included. --Deathphoenix 21:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Numerous people have used 100K as a 'reasonable' Alexa rank for inclusion. If we lower that to 400k, as suggested by voting to keep this, nearly half of Wikipedia would be about websites. Wikipedia is NOT a web directory. Niteowlneils 00:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, and Alexa isn't a helpful measure of anything relating to WP. Wyss 00:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Wtf? are you accusing me of spamming the board? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Naw, I'm describing this article as an ad. Wyss 15:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  In response to this reaction and the one on my talk page; no, you are not being accused or suspected of intentionally "spamming" Wikipedia. --GRider\^talk 18:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  OK, explanation accepted. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Despite its popularity, this doesn't seem encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a web portal. Binadot 04:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, website advert. Megan1967 06:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. Unlike what Wyss says, I do believe Alexa can be useful. Radiant! 10:34, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Alexa is completely unscientific, skewed and it rankings relate only indirectly to notions of what might be encyclopedic IMO. Wyss 15:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neither popular enough nor well enough established. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep in User:Dsupto11's user space (and I thought his post to the mailing list showed a great deal of clue indeed), to bring back if the site takes off and does become notable. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it becomes notable. -- Cleduc 04:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to user space of the creating user instead of deleting (if consensus becomes to delete). It'll save time later when we want to re-create the article. The wiki is strong in this one! Kim Bruning 00:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary to userfy this article, because it looks to be based on User:Dsupto11's user page anyway. While I still feel it should be kept, with the consensus the way it is, this article can be deleted safely with no loss of useful data. --Deathphoenix 15:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:34 Z
• Delete I agree that this page seems purely promotional in nature, and that it is a duplication of my user page. As mentioned, I have attempted to be extremely careful about introducing our site into the Wikipedia community and context. We promote wider participation in the Wikipedia and rely on it as a source of content for music discovery.

As far as encyclopedic relevance is concerned, I humbly offer the following - our use of P2P user music collections is relevant in the context of the long tail, our approach to generating recommendations based on P2P data is relevant in the context of collaborative filtering and our use of user-supplied tags for music is relevant in the context of folksonomy.

If we are to be deleted all together, I'd expect this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenieLab - and this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicmobs to be candidates as well - fwiw our Alexa ranking is now at 252,078 though we don't put much stock in that number either.--Dsupto11 19:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jeepers. At that rate you'll be Officially Notable (tm) before the end of this vfd! :-O Kim Bruning 01:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.