Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangefinderforum.com

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rangefinderforum.com

non-notable forum, doesn't meet WP:WEB Akradecki 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response: Rangefinderforum has 6,000+ registered members, receives 10,000 unique hits per day, is the world's largest forum dedicated to rangefinder cameras and have broken several world-firsts such as photos of the upcoming Leica M8. It has also held photography competitions featuring what can be accomplished using a rangefinder camera - with prices sponsored by well known photographic equipment vendors. I claim that this site IS significant and deserves a place at wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:WEB. There's no criteria that states that the popularity of the site has anything to do with its notability. Anything to indicate the site's notability other than referencing what a reliable source writes is original research. ColourBurst 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am quite sure that RFF has been mentioned and featured in a number of photography magazines, but I don't have any references handy. Devisualize 22:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unless someone can find references to add that show notability. Valrith 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Defence: This is the world's premiere site for users and collectors of rangefinder cameras. How is that not considered notability? Comment: With that argument for deletion how can you allow articles like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredmiranda to be around considering that that site is a very generic site without the unique focus that RFF has? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you had read WP:WEB you'd understand. There are 3 bullets under "Criteria for Web Content", and this article gives no evidence that the site satisfies any of them. Oh, and I have now nominated Fredmiranda for deletion; thanks for pointing it up... Valrith 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for bringing that article to our attention - it has also now been marked for deletion. Thryduulf 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thryduulf 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Why are the articles on photo.net and smugmug not deleted yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 2006-09-05 22:49:44 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RexNL 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Response: Again: Why are;
  • Photo.net
  • Smugmug
  • Youtube
  • Flickr
• allowed on wikipedia taking the rules that you quote into consideration? Some admin care to answe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Asking why this article is up for deletion when YouTube and Flickr aren't... that's a joke, right? Anyhoo Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, despite the amusing comparisons raised above. I always love it when the one-man computer shop asks why his company is being deleted when Microsoft is allowed to stay. Fan-1967 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Let's not get carried away here, I think there is still a difference between a one-man computer shop and a user community with a couple of thousand users. Devisualize 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response Instead of deletion, change into redirection to rangefinder camera instead, in accordance with note 2 of WP:WEB which that "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." Rangefinderforum.com is really the #1 internet resource for rangefinder cameras, so I think this is applicable. I've fleshed out the entry on the rangefinder forum there and put most of the relevant content from this page in there, I think a redirect is the cleaner solution. Devisualize 08:37, 6 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.