Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaiserMonkeys

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 23:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KaiserMonkeys

Fansite with no evidence of passing WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment or addressing concerns. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. Fancruft. MER-C 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have proved it is linked through ShareYourPage.com. I thought this passed WP:WEB. If not, explain how I can do so? Also, can you explain what 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' means? Jonwood1 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That particular guideline in WP:WEB means that the website has been reviewed, had an article written about it or something similar in notable independant sources. This does not include getting listed on blogs, directories, Digg or anything like that, because anyone can link to a site through these; doing so doesn't make that site inherently more notable (more visited perhaps, but traffic volume is not a criteria). So for example, if a website has had an article on Wired.com news about it, or an article in a newspaper or magazine, then it satisfies that criteria. The overwhelming majority of fan websites, no matter how well-made or comprehensive they are, do not pass muster. Otherwise Wikipedia would just become another web directory of every fan site on every subject ever. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Kaiser Chiefs are notable, Arctic Monkeys are notable, but this website is not. Fancruft. BTLizard 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable at all. It completely failed the google test. --queso man 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - OK then, I'll delete it despite the fact I was hurting nobody. Maybe Wiki isn't a democractic site as I once thought, rather a beaucratic one. Jonwood1 19:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The fact that we are having a vote as to whether this article should be deleted or not shows that Wikipedia is, in fact, democratic. --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Totally non notable site, or should I say page on a Social networking site, Piczo. --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 15:14, 7 September 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.