Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Book Database

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 08:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Book Database

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable website trying to piggyback on the more notable The Internet Book Database of Fiction, even cross linked from the latter, and even IMDb to insinuate a connection. Searching google like this yields 36 hits. Alexa ranks them at 6,082,234. – Ezeu 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the main page of the ibookdb site says it is new and the article says it is currently beta testing. Maybe we should let the internet book database article stand and delete the cross link from The Internet Book Database of Fiction?? I was the one who put in the cross link because it is a similar site. And Alexa rankings have no meaning whatsoever.

Maybe cross link IBDOF and IBList from iBookDB Also? Heavenhelllord 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete New website in beta test = not notable yet, fails WP:WEB. We don't list websites that intend to become notable, only ones which already are. Come back when it's established. Fan1967 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete I don't think linking from IMDB Insinuates any kind of connection between IMDB and this site other than that they have a similar purpose - one is for movies and one is for books. Maybe google PR is a better measure than Alexa rank and I checked ibookdb home page has PR3, nowhere near ibdof with PR 5, but ibookdb is new. I was browsing around the ibookdb beta site and I found it to be much more useful than ibdof as far as book information goes. Celmeyi 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note First edit from new user. Fan1967 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can't give an unbiased opinionI am the creator of the Internet Book Database and the site is based on my Book Database here - http://www.parchayi.net/books - This site has a higher Alexa ranking than ibdof, however all links I added to it were deleted from wikipedia in favor of ibdof/iblist because I have affiliate links (well so do ibdof and iblist). I am flattered that somebody made a page for ibookdb at wikipedia, however feel free to delete it until iBookDB goes out of beta and is better established. If you are looking to add a better established site, then feel free to add a page on the parchayi.net book database. I am not going to do it myself because, well, it is going to be deleted anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgd2z (talk • contribs) 15:06 (UTC), 2 June 2006 .
• Delete, not yet notable. Vizjim 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above KleenupKrew 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Domain Name: IBOOKDB.NET \n Created on: 22-Feb-06" Brand new pretty much. Owner of website admits they think its not really notable enough to be in wikipedia yet anyways. Best of luck in getting a successful website. Kevin_b_er 06:27, 6 June 2006 (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.