Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetOutOfJailFree.org

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetOutOfJailFree.org

Does not meet WP:WEB. 7 matches on google, no traffic data from Alexa. The kicker: The article itself describes it as a new site that doesn't work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Cute idea. Delete, because it is non-notable as of yet (seeing as the planned website doesn't function, per article), and I've got a bad feeling that this is going to be one of those sites that either flops or makes headlines. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please allow the page to remain for 30 days while the Wiki Software is ported. The site does function--it simply has little content at this time. Although the site may not have many matches on Google the matches it does have are ranked very high. In fact, when searching for GetOutOfJailFree the site is mentioned in the second result on the first of eight pages of results. I do not understand the statement about a "bad feeling." Yes, it may flop but we here at GetOutOfJailFree do hope that the site does make headlines. In fact, the article does NOT state that this is a "new site." This site is not new--it was started in September of 2004. Thank you for your consideration.- User:DanKilo
  • A note, if the site has been around that long, I would expect more websites to link to it. Also, Alexa would have traffic rankings for it (unless no alexa users had ever visited it, in which case it does not meet notability guidelines). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish you luck with your website, and this isn't ment to be an attack on your page. All this means is that we don't consider the important enough (yet) to be listed here. However, when your page starts to attract mass-media attention, feel free to re-list it with citations to news articals and whatnot. (Signed: J.Smith) 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB. Cannot be encyclopedic until the site becomes established and this looks some way off. Is there a Wiki listings site that you can submit this kind of thing to? - N (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN per WP:WEB and as avert/possible vanity (Signed: J.Smith) 19:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity website that contains traces of Libertarianism propaganda. Sycthos^Talk 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Incognito 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Would not this site belong in the List of wikis and therefore wouldn't it be reasonable for there to be an article about the site in the Encyclopedia? CapitanCook is considered defunct and it is listed. It just made sense to me to write an article about the site before listing it in the List of wikis. Thanks, User:DanKilo
• Delete. CapitanCook had a lot more to it in its day than this thing has now. Having once been notable and now no longer existing is very different from never being notable at all. Peyna 04:13, 22 January 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.