Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSOL.com

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus (3-4 in favour of deletion). Article is kept (default). Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

[edit] LSOL.com

Web page advertising Groeck 1 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

• Keep I've modified the page so that it's up to par as a stub. The site is notable in its field, as there really aren't very many Web sites (let alone train sites) that can claim to have been founded in 1995. Suggest move to Large Scale Online with redirect. -Harmil 1 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)

Mine was founded in 1995 too, but it doesn't have an article on it here... :-) *Dan* July 5, 2005 20:44 (UTC)

mine was too (though the Wayback Machine entry only shows it since 1997 for some reason), but your page and mine are personal home pages. If we were very notable, then perhaps that would be a worthy article, but we're not. That said, LSOL.com is not a personal home page. -Harmil 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

• Keep. Verified stub for a notable website. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Delete This is nothing more than advertising for a hobbyist site that requires paid subscription for membership. It is not especially notable; it doesn't rank high in a Google for garden trains. --Tysto 2005 July 2 04:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory for paid services. Alexa stats: "Traffic Rank for lsol.com: 2,398,396; Not in top 100,000." utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 07:47 (UTC)

I'm confused by this (but new, so willing to learn). Mind you, I have no connection with the original creation of this article nor with the site, but I would think that being a commercial site would have no bearing on notability. This site is unarguably the oldest Web site that deals with this topic, and that seems to me to be notable. If it were free, that would not change the status of the notability, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to shy away from listing The Wall Street Journal or EverQuest based on their being commercial, subscription-based services. Are those "nothing more than advertising", as Tysto says, or do we have some formula that relates degree of notability to degree of commercialism somewhere? I'll stay out of it from here on, but just wanted to see if people were thinking about this objectively, or if I was missing something. -Harmil 5 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:52 (UTC)
• Keep it. I agree with Harmil entirely. --Excession 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Has an Alex rank of 2,200,000 or so and is just a hobbyist site; WP:NOT a webdirectory. Being founded in 1995 is nothing special. -Splash 6 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.