Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brettbits

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. - Mailer Diablo 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brettbits

Completely non-notable website. Prodded twice, both times removed. -- Merope 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• My argument for allowing this article on Wikipedia: On Wikipedia:Notability_(web), criterion 3 states that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators...". BrettBits.com has 4 pieces of content distributed on AlbinoBlackSheep.com, and one content piece that has been accepted and posted on AddictingGames.com, both of which are independent of BrettBits.com, and both of which are well known (each website is notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia). -- Midget3 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. History section is unverifiable, and without it there's really nothing to this article. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• How is the History section any less verifiable than Albinoblacksheep's History? -- Midget3 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 16 unique Google hits for "Brettbits", of which half (8) are DeviantArt pages. AddictingGames and AlbinoBlackSheep host thousands upon thousands upon thousands of games (and movies); if every person with content posted at these sites had WP articles, we'd cross the 1.5 million English articles mark room to spare. In addition, as the article's creator has no other edits, I have very little doubt that this page violates WP:VAIN. -- Kicking222 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. From WP:VAIN: "An article should not be dismissed as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous." Furthermore, Armor Games has even less content to it, none of which is useful. Why is that article not up for deletion? How do we know that the author himself did not simply write an article for self-promotion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midget3 (talk • contribs).

Comment. The amount of content an article has is not the criterion used for determining whether it is up for deletion; its notability is. The policy on vanity was brought up as it is suspected that you, Midget3, have a connection to the creator of the website (if you are not the creator himself). --Merope 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If there is concern regarding vanity, is there a way I can instead submit a request for an article on this website? Midget3 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Notability of other articles isn't an issue here. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 8 August 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.