Talk:SFN (scienceforums.net)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Notability

This is copied to both here and to 213.254.182.234.

I would advise having a read and ensuring you meet all the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Notability (websites). I will give you a while to run through them and see if you want to make a case for keeping this article, otherwise I feel it should be nominated for deletion (where a further defence can be made by those who wish it kept). Ultimately wikipedia is not a website directory, and only a few notable websites generally earn positions in the enclyclopedia. If anyone else has any views on the subject then I would encourage them to post. SFC9394 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I argue FOR
  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms... Some of the experts have written papers in science.
There are other sites out there that have entries that are "not special" so whats different here? RyanJones 20:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not specifically picked this article; I just browsed past it when reverting some vandalism. WP now has a high pretty high google rank, and so pages linking off from here gain a lot more 'status' in the google algorithm than they would linking from any old website. This fact has the downside that articles are created daily which serve no purpose but to spam their specific site higher up the google page results & generate more traffic, revenue & credibility. I am not saying that is the intention here, but it is something which is occurring more and more often and generally means most website entries receive a pessimistic first browse (certainly be me anyway), on the basis of what the intention is, and on the basis of some that WP should only have a small number of articles on websites (top 1000, 5000 or some such number) and that they are generally all created now. I have no specific axe to grind, and the point of talk is to discuss the issue, which I am happy to do. SFC9394 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Additionally, it would be worthwhile ensuring that the article conforms to the Manual of Style, ie. wordings such as "We have 4 sections" & "We hold high hopes for the future of SFN" should generally not be used - it makes the article read like a press release rather than a NPOV encyclopedic article. SFC9394 22:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/f/n/Talk%7ESFN_%28scienceforums.net%29_7157.html"