Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-Am-Bored.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 no consensus, so a default keep for now. Article requires reliable sources to demonstrate the subjects' notability. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-Am-Bored.com

I-Am-Bored.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable website, little or no content to discuss. -Gdavidp 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete The site actually has a remarkably high Alexa rank (3,503), but I can't imagine what could possibly be said about it to fill out an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• It-Is-Deleted per nom. No assertion of notability. RGTraynor 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The site seems to be somewhat popular (Alexa rank of 3,503 [1] & ~579,000 612,000 Ghits for "i-am-bored.com" [2]). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High Alexa rating, interesting site. Edison 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Akihabara 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High alexa, plus, I know plenty of people who use it. FirefoxMan 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Subject meets WP:WEB with its traffic and Ghits, but this empty article with puffery isn't the way to do it. Scrape clean and start anew - it needs an encyclopedic article that actually explains what it is and what it does. B.Wind 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per multiple non-trivial published coverage - e.g. here and here. Does need major cleanup though.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rank is unreliable and easily faked (like getting visitors to download the Alexa toolbar). Google searching the site itself [3] shows a way too low count for this rank, proving the Alexa rank is very inflated. Wikipedia policy says google hits and Alexa rank are not great enough indicators to keep sites per WP:WEB, only to exclude them and Wikipedia goes based on WP:V and WP:RS, not popularity. Article has no reliable sources or anything for verifiability. The only link is to its website. Anomo 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with you that Alexa rank and google hits alone don't establish notability. However, I think the links I provided above comply with WP:V and WP:RS. --Kubigula (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - They should have been already added to the article. Anomo 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I cleaned it up the article a little and added the references. It needs more, but this isn't really my area of expertise.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Modern Pop Culture

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.