Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HEXUS

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. Enochlau 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HEXUS

Vanity. Does not fullfill any of the suggestions for WP:WEB. Alexa ranks it [17,000] HackJandy 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, unless more substantial evidence of notability provided. (Any print references?) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - so am I to understand that we are limiting ourselves, definitively, to a maximum possible of 10,000 articles about the internet? That seems a bit harsh. Remember, Alexa is the LAST RESORT to justify notoriety. It is not the only method. Its claims to being UK's largest technology news and reviews website assert notoriety. If its true, then keep. Needs verification to determine that. If that's true, its an auto. And this seems to be our verification. Zordrac 08:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, Alexa is the LAST RESORT to justify notoriety... Absolutely. Unfortunately, the other two guidelines are nowhere to be seen with this website. I had to default onto Alexa, and the article does not even satisfy that requirement. HackJandy 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Oh, and I forgot this snippet (same page): HEXUS reaches more than half a million unique visitors each month, who read more than four million pages of content.. Now, I will assume that it quoting these companies, with their logos asserts that what they are saying is the truth. If it wasn't, then they'd be sued. Ergo, verified. And half a million (500,000) meets the WP:WEB requirement of 5,000 unique visitors. And to think, this was a direct link off the article site... Zordrac 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No comment on the nomination, but the WP:WEB requirement is members, not visitors. -- Kjkolb 12:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As with Kjkolb's comment, the 5,000 user requirement is for active forum members, not unique visitors. The information you pulled about unique visitors was from the HEXUS website as well, which does not really strengthen its case. I have not voted yet since I nominated, but I am moving twoards strong delete now. Furthermore... If it wasn't, then they'd be sued. Ergo, verified. If this was really true, we wouldn't be deleting 10 websites a day from WP. HackJandy 15:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. per Zordac (Notorious4life 18:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Does not hold any of the statistics mentioned in WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Let's go through them real quick for those voting to keep this vanity:

1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years; -- From the Google Search, all of the 33 links provided are either from HEXUS themselves or from press releases.

2. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; -- Right from their webpage: Currently Active Users: 391 (84 members and 307 guests)

3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found. Alexa says 17,000.

The entire article reads like a press release anyway. For example: 'HEXUS has featured on Slashdot on several occasions and has been referred to by some as "The UK's answer to Anandtech".' Original research much? Of the four entries to the article, two are from me when I was adding the AFD tag. This is blatent vanity and non-noteable. HackJandy 19:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Love the malapropism "notoriety" used in this AFD. I'm sure we do list some notorious websites, though. Drudge Report, for example.—Wahoofive (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per HackJandy. Non-notable site that doesn't meet the recommended guidelines.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, per the above. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 30 November 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.