Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucked Company (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Kimchi.sg 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fucked Company

Fucked Company was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucked Company.

Although this may have passed before, it clearly DOESNT pass the WP:WEB. I say reconsider and delete this article. Popcorn2008 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008

  • Comment Please also review the first nomination. — NMChico24 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB as ghits are low, and alexa is 7,379. SynergeticMaggot 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait wait wait wait... 66,000 (with 550 of the first 1000 being unique) Google hits is low, and 7,379 is a poor Alexa rank? What do you consider a lot of Google hits, ten million? -- Kicking222 03:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Another problem with the Ghit count is that it excludes hits that refer to the site as one word, fuckedcompany. That gets well over 150,000 hits. It also excludes sites that refer to the site as "f@ed" or some other "polite" variation. The total on all terms gets a quarter-million Ghits. And the Alexa rank is impressive, especially considering that the dot-com bust, when the site was really hot, has passed. --Groggy Dice 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Synergetic Maggot. -- Kicking222 03:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, 7379 is a pretty low number. Considering millions go online and can view a website, only 7300+ hits is a very low number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn2008 (talk • contribs)
      • That's not how alexa works. The lower the website's rank number, the more frequently visited it is. An Alexa of 1 is the most visited site in Alexa's database, while a rank of 5,000,000 would be a poorly visited site. Considering Alexa ranks millions of websites, being #7,379 is pretty impressive. — NMChico24 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is almost, but not quite, a spurious nomination. The article is in pretty sad shape, which explains why someone would consider it non-notable, but Fucked Company certainly has received a lot of attention — it's Ghits confirm that — especially during the waning days of dotcom and the subsequent crash. In any case, I don't see any compelling argument to delete that wasn't addressed in the first nomination. It certainly does meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Site is clearly well-frequented, but I have to say this article leaves a lot to be desired. It is in dire need of expansion, since being pretty much a stub for four years is pitiful. — NMChico24 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps then I was wrong with my deletion nomination, this article may just need some added content. Because of its small length I believe I jumped the gun on calling it insignificant. Also sorry about the Alexa mix-up :). --Popcorn2008 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it. I made the same mistake when I first started using Alexa. — NMChico24 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Should I create a page called Wikipedia:Don't confuse Alexa with Google? Wait... Popcorn, are you withdrawing your nom? That may still leave Synergetic. Morgan Wick 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Website was the subject of news coverage during dot-com collapse, although for that reason it is primarily of historical interest here. Daniel Case 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, according to my library, this has been covered by Esquire, Playboy, The Guardian, LA Weekly, Fortune, Salon.com, etc. Stub needs expansion, not deletion. -- Dragonfiend 05:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Website is not rendering properly here, so I cannot head over an check any forum to see if they are discussing the AfD. Can someone please keep an eye on such things and give helpful avice for saving the entry if they begin to notice? Thanks ! LinaMishima 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with sources cited. Sounds to me like they shoiuld have some LinaMishima 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep AFireUponDeep 07:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Abe Dashiell and many others. The closing administrator should take note that a few people are grossly misinterpreting Alexa rankings, and that this was a profoundly notable website during the dotcom crash, easily meeting WP:WEB guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Wasn't a book written based off this site? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, that's actually a pretty good Alexa rating... Ruaraidh-dobson 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. Note I suspect the nomination may be a WP:POINT, what the point is isn't explained. --TheM62Manchester 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although my memory is as shaky as Badlydrawnjeff's, it is trying to draw my attention to the same thing. This is definitely notable online. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep popular website (current Alexa rank 7,379) which was turned into a successful book published by a real publisher. Worth keeping. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and interesting site Dlyons493 Talk 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP:SNOW. BoojiBoy 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I removed the {PROD} notice, this is clearly a notable site. And as I've noted in a comment above, Google gives more hits for the site as one word, fuckedcompany, than two, pushing the total count above 250,000. --Groggy Dice 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable; and also, what's the statute of limitations on resubmitting an article that got a "Keep" the last time? I thought it was three months, or 1 if it was "no consensus". --PresN 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no statue of limitations, however, there should be, esp after a keep consensus. hateless 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, obviously notable. Has mainstream media coverage as well, although that may just be my hazy memory. per Dragonfiend. hateless 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw by Nominee. Okay I was misinformed about this forum mainly because of it's short length, it doenst need a delete but rather someone to go over and add more information. I withdraw my nomination for deletion. --Popcorn2008 17:24, 1 August 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.