Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperdoll Heaven2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 No consensus, defaults to keep Proto||type 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paperdoll Heaven
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. 30k google hits, though 0 Google Groups hits. Has traffic data on Alexa [1]. The article could be cleaned up, but it looks like it's probably marginally notable at least. --Interiot 15:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)- Very strong keep per 2,148 alexa rank and 30,500 google. Comfortably meets WP:WEB. It's got newspaper reports about it, etc etc. Fan sites. Very notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, combing through the google results, a large percentage of them look like SEO spam, I was having a hard time finding meaningful links to the site. But the Alexa rank does let it clear WP:WEB. --Interiot 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry? I didn't check through the google too much, just enough to note that all the google hits were actually about this. It meets Alexa pretty easily though. 2,000 while 10,000 is the criteria. So we shouldn't need to worry about the google part. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per UncleG, the best use of Google results is to carefully scan through them, and find "other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it". Many of the Paperdoll Heaven hits are either simply links to the site that look like they could have been placed there as part of an SEO compaign (eg. many one-liners from blogspot [2]), or are mentions by blogs (many of them non-notable). I suppose that it's not a subject that newspapers would write about often, but maybe that means its inclusion in an encyclopedia should be borderline, not Strong. Nonetheless, there are a few semi-notable independent links to the site. [3] [4] --Interiot 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- And as I said I was doing keep firstly based on its alexa rank. You don't need to think beyond that if it meets that easily. Unless you can somehow fake an alexa rank. Can you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I guess Wikipedia:Google test notes that the Alexa toolbar allows some websites to skew their own ratings, but I was mainly just nitpicking, because I wasn't convinced that it was a Strong Keep due to large number of low quality google hits. --Interiot 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- And as I said I was doing keep firstly based on its alexa rank. You don't need to think beyond that if it meets that easily. Unless you can somehow fake an alexa rank. Can you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per UncleG, the best use of Google results is to carefully scan through them, and find "other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it". Many of the Paperdoll Heaven hits are either simply links to the site that look like they could have been placed there as part of an SEO compaign (eg. many one-liners from blogspot [2]), or are mentions by blogs (many of them non-notable). I suppose that it's not a subject that newspapers would write about often, but maybe that means its inclusion in an encyclopedia should be borderline, not Strong. Nonetheless, there are a few semi-notable independent links to the site. [3] [4] --Interiot 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry? I didn't check through the google too much, just enough to note that all the google hits were actually about this. It meets Alexa pretty easily though. 2,000 while 10,000 is the criteria. So we shouldn't need to worry about the google part. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, combing through the google results, a large percentage of them look like SEO spam, I was having a hard time finding meaningful links to the site. But the Alexa rank does let it clear WP:WEB. --Interiot 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I call Bullsh*t. No way do I believe that Alexa rank. It's been obviously manipulated to boost ad revenues, which is why those google links are so suspicious. Probably part of the same campaign. Probably used Alexa Booster: [[5]] (This, btw, is why Alexa rankings should be treated with care. Do you really believe that this ridiculous site could reach that kind of rank??????) Eusebeus 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm currently working for the company behind the site. We have not engaged in any SEO or artificial Alexa-rank boosting. Believe it or not, there is a big demand for this kind of content. We're past a million subscribers now and are, at times, pushing out 200 Mbit/s of data. Index Ventures has invested $4 million in the company. I will abstain from voting on this request for deletion since I'm biased. If the article is kept, however, it's quite obvious that it needs some serious rewriting. It should also be renamed to Stardoll. I've been intending to do this, but haven't had the time. We're in chrunch mode now. :) Ehn 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to get enough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Hetar 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep due to Alexa rank and not being able to disprove the claimed 900,000 subscriber base. David | Talk 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Onus is on the author to provide verification. I'm still sceptical about this alexa rank, but I am open to being convinced. Eusebeus 15:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks convincing external evidence of notablity. Scranchuse 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, or remove all but the first two paragraphs. Marginal notability, and most of the current text isn't worth keeping. --Interiot 17:30, 5 April 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.
