Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calgarychillin.com

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calgarychillin.com

Wikipedia is not self-promotion. Article is about a website with an Alexa rank of 1,018,050 [1] and 900 members in their forum. Fails WP:WEB. Mentioned on a total of 9 domains on the entire internet [2], and those mostly look like advertisements done by the site. --W.marsh 03:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete obviously. I like this: It originally started with 0 members. With minimal advertising the site has grown exponentially to 891 I gotta learn this new math though. 0 raised to what power is 891? Eusebeus 08:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. If there is, I'll change my vote. --Bachrach44 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not notable. Ifnord 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam, period.--MONGO 02:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Bachrach44. Stifle 00:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• harsh aren't you per anonymous: I didn't add this website so you could shoot down my entry as spam; it's not- I wasn't aware of the WP:WEB requirement, although given how harsh you people are I don't think I'll submit it for inclusion when it reaches those levels; there is a wikipedia policy which says "don't bite newcomers", you know. I really don't care if you delete it or not, but what gives you the right to be so self righteous about it? User:Poutinginacorner

And Eusebeus, a website which has added 891 members in 5 months members actually has grown quickly. "Growing exponentially" is a common turn of phrase for growing quickly; it sounds better than "the website has grown something like exponentially but not exponentially because exponential growth requires something greater than 0; um that's just my two bits though.......User:poutinginacorner 19:38 December 10 2005

• Comment The tone of the votes here is typical of how most AfD discussions go, I don't think anyone here is trying to be mean to you. I personally welcome you to contribute to Wikipedia, but you might want to be aware of what Wikipedia is not first, to avoid misunderstandings like this. --W.marsh 03:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I suppose I understand that, although a few comments seem a little snide. One thing I don't understand about the WP:WEB rules is that no site with less than 5000 members on a site is worth mentioning. Why is that? Does that mean that what has not reached the mainstream media is not worth considering? Does that mean that only popular things are worthy? If oprah talks about it then it's worth including, but otherwise it's not? Whatever happened to the concept of exchanging ideas? Or is it designed to remove clutter from the website? User:poutinginacorner 23:14, 10 December 2005

Pretty much. I mean, Wikipedia is not just free space for whatever people feel like. I know people get that impression sometimes, and it seems harsh when a bunch of strangers start going "Delete your webpage" but the bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia. What exactly "notability" means is an endless debate, but WP:WEB tries to establish sites that a lot of people have heard of, and are likely to be looking up in an encyclopedia. It's not at all a slight against a given site (my favorite website/community for example, which I've been a part of since 1996, wouldn't meet WP:WEB in a million years). --W.marsh 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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.